The server sends a random string of digits to the client and says "encrypt this using your hash as the key". The client does so and responds with the encrypted data. The server, since it knows what the user's hash should look like, can then duplicate the encryption function and compare the results. The server will never see the plaintext of the password, and the hash will never leave the application space on either end, and replay attacks are impossible since the random string will be different every time (and therefor the expected response will be different every time).
Not that many places are doing this currently. And not that such a system is magically foolproof, but it does eliminate the kind of attacks you are describing.
One thing that even most parents don't realize is the number of minor infections that a baby will get that we don't even have a name for because by the time we are old enough to talk about them we're all immune. I'd be willing to bet that if you sampled your child's blood every day of their life for the first 3 years, you'd see anomolous numbers as often as you'd see normal ones. Except 'normal' is a relative thing, an infant's immune system is under constant assault by thousands of diseases that we don't even know about. The perception that an infants immune system is somehow frailer than an adults is only valid because it hasn't been trained in on everything an adult's has.
It's common knowledge, for instance, that teething causes a fever right? Everyone who reads the parenting books knows that! Except it isn't true. Teething can cause a very minor raise in temperature, half a degree or so, but that's it. It just so happens that infants are very likely to come down with a number of viral infections around the time most kids start teething. And everyone knows that RSV is a serious disease that you need to take your kid to the doctor for right? Except no... literally every infant in the civilized world gets RSV, it's just serious for a very small number of kids who develop a bad case.
Except, in the case of vaccines, the researchers heard all the shouts of "It must be the vaccines" and they went back and did more research, with more kids and found that there was still no link, this time with a 99.99% certainty (as opposed to just 99.9%). And the anti-vac crowd shouts "No! It must be the vaccines!" So the researches go back again, and again, and again. And every time they find the same thing. Vaccines cause some minor reactions, very, very rarely they cause something more serious. But they do not cause autism. When the one side says "It must be the vaccine because... I think it is!" and the other stands on top of a mountain of data that says "we know, thanks to all this data, that it doesn't beyond any reasonable doubt".
Put another way. Yeah, it's possible that there's room in the statistics for vaccines to produce mental deficiencies in some tiny, miniscule percentage of people. But that number is statistically certain to be orders of magnitude less than the number of lives that are saved by those same vaccines. And even that statement is granting an aweful lot to the anti-vaccine crowd based on no experimental evidence.
Also, here's a fun fact for you: kids that get vaccinated are very slightly less likely to develop autism spectrum disorders. The cause and effect is almost certainly not that simple, if I had to guess I would say it's that vaccinated children have vaccinated parents, and a vaccinated mother is less likely to come down with influenza during her pregnancy, which new research indicates actually does correlate with autism.
I could spend hours picking apart your links but how about this one. One the one hand, they argue that 'non-paralytic' polio numbers were being included to boost the reported cases in order to generate support for the vaccine. On the other, they talk about the "Cutter Laboratories Incident" where live virus made it through the vaccine manufacturing process and infected tens of thousands of people. The only problem? Of the tens of thousands of people infected by the Cutter Incident, a whopping 56 of those cases were paralytic. By their own argument the incident was a tiny blip on the radar. Not to mention the fact that the incident was a national scandal, caused by poor practices and not a result of the vaccine itself.
They also ignore the fact that polio is still epidemic in countries where the polio vaccine is not available. They flat out lie about the numbers of polio infections (claiming that they were in rapid decline in the early 1950s when in fact 1952 was one of the worst outbreaks ever). They try to support those numbers by arguing that polio deaths is a more accurate count that polio incidence despite the fact that there were dramatic improvements in the treatment of polio going on in the 1950s.
That's as far as I got before I was too overwhelmed with the mind-numbing blindness of their analysis to continue. They have made their decision on what the numbers mean, and they'll be damned if the numbers are going to say anything else.
Ok, I should have been clearer, vaccinating earlier has zero detectable costs when compared to vaccinating later.
As for the complication rate, it is an order of magnitude smaller than the complication rates for the diseases that they vaccinate against. Diseases that used to be pandemic and almost certainly would be again if vaccination rates drop much more than they already have. On an individual, game theory level, you might have an argument for things not being clear cut. After all, if I'm never exposed to the disease (because everyone around me is immune) there's no benefit in getting the shot, there is only the (statistically tiny) risk of an adverse reaction that permanently harms me. But if everyone follows that logic society loses massively as the diseases return to their old levels. That's why the vaccine compensation courts were set up in the first place, to guarantee that the cost of an adverse reaction is recoverable, putting averaged out cost for the patient as close to zero as possible.
Causal relationships don't exists if they are only present 0.1% of the time.
Sure they do, you're probably missing some other factors, but you can still have a causal relationship. For example: eating peanuts causes an allergic reaction in.5% of people, that is a statement of a causal relationship. A better statement would be.5% of people are allergic to peanuts and eating peanuts causes an allergic reaction in 100% of them, but that doesn't invalidate the first statement in the slightest.
He has a grandson with autism, that to me should mean he would be better informed than the average. Instead he's globbed onto the anti-vaccine crowd so that he has someone to blame for his family's hardships. It's disgusting that we let people like that control the political debate in our nation.
Yes, stupid people have been speaking out against vaccines for more than a century. But this isn't stupid people on the street. It isn't a former playboy model. It isn't your high school drop out cousin. These are the people we chose to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. That they are so wildly, ridiculously misinformed on such an important topic is horrifying.
A child's immune system is well established in the months after they are born, else the vaccines wouldn't do anything in the first place (since they rely on the immune response to actually do anything). We vaccinate children as young as possible because young children get sick! Pretty much the only "STD" that a young child is vaccinated against is Hep B, which is also transmitted any number of other ways and has huge repercussions for the rest of the child's life if contracted. Not to mention that every single "well baby" visit is less likely to be attended than the one before it, especially by the poorest people who are at the highest risk for these diseases.
This isn't rocket science! Vaccinating children, even newborns has zero detectable health costs (despite the anti-vaccine crowds looking for them for decades) and provides enormous benefits.
You can build guns for private use, you don't even need to stamp a registration number on it. Until you transfer the gun to some other party you are in the clear, and even then there are some exceptions I believe.
"Signs of untrustworthiness include averted eyes; an insincere smile that doesn't reach the eyes; a smug, smirky mouth; and a backward tilt to the head."
It's not about some new age, face based phrenology; it's about reading body language and facial expressions. Especially the involuntary micro-expressions that we all make every minute of every day but that are too subtle to be consciously detected by most people. A "smile that doesn't reach the eyes" isn't something you're going to see and say to yourself "he's not really smiling" but you will say "something's just... not quite right with that guy".
It's not a tax on the internet, it's a tax on goods bought from an out of state seller. In other words, it's a tax that, from a purely legal standpoint, you're already supposed to be paying yourself every year when you file your taxes.
Alternatively, 3rd party accounting firms will spring up which specialize in solving the issue. So that many, many small business effectively pool their resources to solve the problem. On the one hand, no one wants to pay sales tax on the things they buy online. On the other, it's completely unfair to local businesses that do have to pay taxes, especially when there are players with the size and influence of Amazon that don't.
Even if it's produced with 100% coal it will nearly always be more efficient that gas. An energy harvesting system that is several orders of magnitude larger, more complex, and capable of running much hotter is much, much more efficient than a 1.6L ICE. A traditional power plant generator can turn 40% of the energy in it's fuel into electricity. A combined cycle plant can reach 60%. The best an ICE can even theoretically do is about 35% due to material limits, an average car in average use is uses about 15% of the energy in it's fuel to actually move the car.
Oh, and even a coal power plant has better emissions controls for pollutants than a car engine does. Believe it or not, a $500 catalytic converter doesn't magically remove everything harmful from car exhaust that a $500,000 scrubbing system can remove from coal exhaust.
This is not inconsistent! Parents know that their children aren't going to go out maiming and murdering people (even is that child is an obvious sociopath, the parents will "know" that they couldn't possibly do that). Parents also know that given the slightest opportunity, the vast majority of teenage boys (and far more of the girls than our society is willing to admit) will have as absolutely much sex as possible. There's nothing inconsistent with reducing exposure to the one that you are actually worried about while not caring the in the slightest about exposure to the other that you are not worried about.
I think it's pretty obvious that what he is saying is that Asperger's symptoms fall within what he considers the normal range of human variation. Is that true or not? I don't know. I've only known one person with Asperger's and it was obvious that not only was it hurting him socially (and therefor economically). He knew he had a problem, and he would have fixed it if there was a way to do so which says a lot to me about how he perceived it.
When they got rid of the half-penny, the penny (the newly lowest denomination) was worth $.23 in today's money. There's nothing inherently specially about the $.01 value. If I had it my way I'd get rid of everything up to the dime and replace the dollar bill with a coin. But then, I think spending $.025 on making pennies, and $.11 on nickels is ridiculous. And wasting money on reprinting worn out $1 bills when coins would last much longer equally so.
A walking colony could work though. You'd have to guarantee that your colony could continually move at the speed of the terminus, but if you put it close to the poles that wouldn't really be much of a problem once the route is established. Even at the equator you're only talking 5km/h, a brisk walking speed. There were some semi-serious proposals to lay rails down and let the heat expansion of the rail behind you push your colony forward so that you're in a constant dawn.
Or just build your colony underground, with the entrance positioned to always be in shade.
Yes, but sometimes the outliers are the data you want. I work in a building complex with several thousand people in it that covers nearly a square mile, compared to probably a handful on the grounds outside at any given moment. A statistical analysis would throw the outdoor data out and keep the indoor.
1) Great art, as defined by the generation experiencing it, is what that generation is willing to pay for. 2) Revenge of the Sith made nearly a billion dollars in revenue 3) Obviously Revenge of the Sith is the type of art that this generation places the most value on. Along with Transformers 1 2 and 3, Ice Age 3, etc etc
(Incidentally, where the argument fails is that there are other high grossing movies that could easily be chosen following the same argument. Avatar was at least 'pretty' if absolutely formulaic. Some of the Pixar and Disney animated movies really are works of art and grossed higher. Plus, what the average teenager is willing to spend money to go see is a terrible, terrible way to gauge the value of a work)
It doesn't enslave the shareholders, it punishes them for their roll in a crime. They are financially supporting a company that performs illegal actions. They have the right to vote new directors, new policies, new mission statements, and in extreme cases they have the right to sue if their interests aren't be met. If all else fails, they have the right to sell their stock to someone else.
Imagine it this way: I've got a buddy who used to work in the oil business. He's got land that he knows has oil under it, and says to me that for $10,000 he can cut a lot of corners, take a lot of risks, but he'll get that oil pumping and give me 50% of the profits. As a partner in that venture, I would absolutely be held responsible if his illegal drilling practices killed people and caused an ecological disaster.
For some people you have to simplify the simplification of the simplification. When I feel that is necessary, I like to make it obvious that I'm dumbing things down so I don't feel as stupid spelling things out.
But, how on earth does a company that is ever found guilty of a manslaughter charge ever serve prison time???
Lots of options: A) Close the doors, permanently or temporarily B) Fines equal to multiple years worth of profit, equivalent to the wages lost when a person is in prison C) Massive government oversight into their operations from the boardroom down to the people manning the rigs, paid for by BP through fines D) Government seizure of assets up to and including the entire company, to be sold off to the highest bidder.
"Oh noes! That screws the shareholders!" Yeah, that's the point. We've already decided, as a society, that shareholders are who companies are really accountable to. The risk that your company gets lots of people killed, destroys ecosystems and regional economies should be factored into your share price.
Oil is a fungible commodity. That is to say, oil of similar quality is worth the same regardless of whom it comes from. That is to say, they cannot raise prices because their competitors (of which there are many, many competitors in the crude oil industry) will eat them alive.
And even ignoring all that, your statement implies that by raising prices they could increase their profit margins. Why wouldn't they be doing that before the fine was levied. That would be like someone at the boardroom meeting says "if we increase our prices by 10% we will see a $4.5 billion increase in profit", if it worked that way they would have done it already.
Most red light cameras take a picture when the light turns red, then another when they detect motion. If you are are in the intersection for the first picture, they don't issue a ticket even if you're in the picture for the second. The real problem is your second point. Just like an IP address doesn't identify a person, neither does a car.
Slashdot Mirror
The server sends a random string of digits to the client and says "encrypt this using your hash as the key". The client does so and responds with the encrypted data. The server, since it knows what the user's hash should look like, can then duplicate the encryption function and compare the results. The server will never see the plaintext of the password, and the hash will never leave the application space on either end, and replay attacks are impossible since the random string will be different every time (and therefor the expected response will be different every time).
Not that many places are doing this currently. And not that such a system is magically foolproof, but it does eliminate the kind of attacks you are describing.
One thing that even most parents don't realize is the number of minor infections that a baby will get that we don't even have a name for because by the time we are old enough to talk about them we're all immune. I'd be willing to bet that if you sampled your child's blood every day of their life for the first 3 years, you'd see anomolous numbers as often as you'd see normal ones. Except 'normal' is a relative thing, an infant's immune system is under constant assault by thousands of diseases that we don't even know about. The perception that an infants immune system is somehow frailer than an adults is only valid because it hasn't been trained in on everything an adult's has.
It's common knowledge, for instance, that teething causes a fever right? Everyone who reads the parenting books knows that! Except it isn't true. Teething can cause a very minor raise in temperature, half a degree or so, but that's it. It just so happens that infants are very likely to come down with a number of viral infections around the time most kids start teething. And everyone knows that RSV is a serious disease that you need to take your kid to the doctor for right? Except no... literally every infant in the civilized world gets RSV, it's just serious for a very small number of kids who develop a bad case.
Except, in the case of vaccines, the researchers heard all the shouts of "It must be the vaccines" and they went back and did more research, with more kids and found that there was still no link, this time with a 99.99% certainty (as opposed to just 99.9%). And the anti-vac crowd shouts "No! It must be the vaccines!" So the researches go back again, and again, and again. And every time they find the same thing. Vaccines cause some minor reactions, very, very rarely they cause something more serious. But they do not cause autism. When the one side says "It must be the vaccine because... I think it is!" and the other stands on top of a mountain of data that says "we know, thanks to all this data, that it doesn't beyond any reasonable doubt".
Put another way. Yeah, it's possible that there's room in the statistics for vaccines to produce mental deficiencies in some tiny, miniscule percentage of people. But that number is statistically certain to be orders of magnitude less than the number of lives that are saved by those same vaccines. And even that statement is granting an aweful lot to the anti-vaccine crowd based on no experimental evidence.
Also, here's a fun fact for you: kids that get vaccinated are very slightly less likely to develop autism spectrum disorders. The cause and effect is almost certainly not that simple, if I had to guess I would say it's that vaccinated children have vaccinated parents, and a vaccinated mother is less likely to come down with influenza during her pregnancy, which new research indicates actually does correlate with autism.
I could spend hours picking apart your links but how about this one. One the one hand, they argue that 'non-paralytic' polio numbers were being included to boost the reported cases in order to generate support for the vaccine. On the other, they talk about the "Cutter Laboratories Incident" where live virus made it through the vaccine manufacturing process and infected tens of thousands of people. The only problem? Of the tens of thousands of people infected by the Cutter Incident, a whopping 56 of those cases were paralytic. By their own argument the incident was a tiny blip on the radar. Not to mention the fact that the incident was a national scandal, caused by poor practices and not a result of the vaccine itself.
They also ignore the fact that polio is still epidemic in countries where the polio vaccine is not available. They flat out lie about the numbers of polio infections (claiming that they were in rapid decline in the early 1950s when in fact 1952 was one of the worst outbreaks ever). They try to support those numbers by arguing that polio deaths is a more accurate count that polio incidence despite the fact that there were dramatic improvements in the treatment of polio going on in the 1950s.
That's as far as I got before I was too overwhelmed with the mind-numbing blindness of their analysis to continue. They have made their decision on what the numbers mean, and they'll be damned if the numbers are going to say anything else.
Ok, I should have been clearer, vaccinating earlier has zero detectable costs when compared to vaccinating later.
As for the complication rate, it is an order of magnitude smaller than the complication rates for the diseases that they vaccinate against. Diseases that used to be pandemic and almost certainly would be again if vaccination rates drop much more than they already have. On an individual, game theory level, you might have an argument for things not being clear cut. After all, if I'm never exposed to the disease (because everyone around me is immune) there's no benefit in getting the shot, there is only the (statistically tiny) risk of an adverse reaction that permanently harms me. But if everyone follows that logic society loses massively as the diseases return to their old levels. That's why the vaccine compensation courts were set up in the first place, to guarantee that the cost of an adverse reaction is recoverable, putting averaged out cost for the patient as close to zero as possible.
Causal relationships don't exists if they are only present 0.1% of the time.
Sure they do, you're probably missing some other factors, but you can still have a causal relationship. For example: eating peanuts causes an allergic reaction in .5% of people, that is a statement of a causal relationship. A better statement would be .5% of people are allergic to peanuts and eating peanuts causes an allergic reaction in 100% of them, but that doesn't invalidate the first statement in the slightest.
He has a grandson with autism, that to me should mean he would be better informed than the average. Instead he's globbed onto the anti-vaccine crowd so that he has someone to blame for his family's hardships. It's disgusting that we let people like that control the political debate in our nation.
Yes, stupid people have been speaking out against vaccines for more than a century. But this isn't stupid people on the street. It isn't a former playboy model. It isn't your high school drop out cousin. These are the people we chose to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. That they are so wildly, ridiculously misinformed on such an important topic is horrifying.
A child's immune system is well established in the months after they are born, else the vaccines wouldn't do anything in the first place (since they rely on the immune response to actually do anything). We vaccinate children as young as possible because young children get sick! Pretty much the only "STD" that a young child is vaccinated against is Hep B, which is also transmitted any number of other ways and has huge repercussions for the rest of the child's life if contracted. Not to mention that every single "well baby" visit is less likely to be attended than the one before it, especially by the poorest people who are at the highest risk for these diseases.
This isn't rocket science! Vaccinating children, even newborns has zero detectable health costs (despite the anti-vaccine crowds looking for them for decades) and provides enormous benefits.
You can build guns for private use, you don't even need to stamp a registration number on it. Until you transfer the gun to some other party you are in the clear, and even then there are some exceptions I believe.
"Signs of untrustworthiness include averted eyes; an insincere smile that doesn't reach the eyes; a smug, smirky mouth; and a backward tilt to the head."
It's not about some new age, face based phrenology; it's about reading body language and facial expressions. Especially the involuntary micro-expressions that we all make every minute of every day but that are too subtle to be consciously detected by most people. A "smile that doesn't reach the eyes" isn't something you're going to see and say to yourself "he's not really smiling" but you will say "something's just... not quite right with that guy".
It's not a tax on the internet, it's a tax on goods bought from an out of state seller. In other words, it's a tax that, from a purely legal standpoint, you're already supposed to be paying yourself every year when you file your taxes.
Alternatively, 3rd party accounting firms will spring up which specialize in solving the issue. So that many, many small business effectively pool their resources to solve the problem. On the one hand, no one wants to pay sales tax on the things they buy online. On the other, it's completely unfair to local businesses that do have to pay taxes, especially when there are players with the size and influence of Amazon that don't.
Even if it's produced with 100% coal it will nearly always be more efficient that gas. An energy harvesting system that is several orders of magnitude larger, more complex, and capable of running much hotter is much, much more efficient than a 1.6L ICE. A traditional power plant generator can turn 40% of the energy in it's fuel into electricity. A combined cycle plant can reach 60%. The best an ICE can even theoretically do is about 35% due to material limits, an average car in average use is uses about 15% of the energy in it's fuel to actually move the car.
Oh, and even a coal power plant has better emissions controls for pollutants than a car engine does. Believe it or not, a $500 catalytic converter doesn't magically remove everything harmful from car exhaust that a $500,000 scrubbing system can remove from coal exhaust.
This is not inconsistent! Parents know that their children aren't going to go out maiming and murdering people (even is that child is an obvious sociopath, the parents will "know" that they couldn't possibly do that). Parents also know that given the slightest opportunity, the vast majority of teenage boys (and far more of the girls than our society is willing to admit) will have as absolutely much sex as possible. There's nothing inconsistent with reducing exposure to the one that you are actually worried about while not caring the in the slightest about exposure to the other that you are not worried about.
I think it's pretty obvious that what he is saying is that Asperger's symptoms fall within what he considers the normal range of human variation. Is that true or not? I don't know. I've only known one person with Asperger's and it was obvious that not only was it hurting him socially (and therefor economically). He knew he had a problem, and he would have fixed it if there was a way to do so which says a lot to me about how he perceived it.
When they got rid of the half-penny, the penny (the newly lowest denomination) was worth $.23 in today's money. There's nothing inherently specially about the $.01 value. If I had it my way I'd get rid of everything up to the dime and replace the dollar bill with a coin. But then, I think spending $.025 on making pennies, and $.11 on nickels is ridiculous. And wasting money on reprinting worn out $1 bills when coins would last much longer equally so.
A walking colony could work though. You'd have to guarantee that your colony could continually move at the speed of the terminus, but if you put it close to the poles that wouldn't really be much of a problem once the route is established. Even at the equator you're only talking 5km/h, a brisk walking speed. There were some semi-serious proposals to lay rails down and let the heat expansion of the rail behind you push your colony forward so that you're in a constant dawn.
Or just build your colony underground, with the entrance positioned to always be in shade.
Yes, but sometimes the outliers are the data you want. I work in a building complex with several thousand people in it that covers nearly a square mile, compared to probably a handful on the grounds outside at any given moment. A statistical analysis would throw the outdoor data out and keep the indoor.
How's this then?
1) Great art, as defined by the generation experiencing it, is what that generation is willing to pay for.
2) Revenge of the Sith made nearly a billion dollars in revenue
3) Obviously Revenge of the Sith is the type of art that this generation places the most value on. Along with Transformers 1 2 and 3, Ice Age 3, etc etc
(Incidentally, where the argument fails is that there are other high grossing movies that could easily be chosen following the same argument. Avatar was at least 'pretty' if absolutely formulaic. Some of the Pixar and Disney animated movies really are works of art and grossed higher. Plus, what the average teenager is willing to spend money to go see is a terrible, terrible way to gauge the value of a work)
It doesn't enslave the shareholders, it punishes them for their roll in a crime. They are financially supporting a company that performs illegal actions. They have the right to vote new directors, new policies, new mission statements, and in extreme cases they have the right to sue if their interests aren't be met. If all else fails, they have the right to sell their stock to someone else.
Imagine it this way: I've got a buddy who used to work in the oil business. He's got land that he knows has oil under it, and says to me that for $10,000 he can cut a lot of corners, take a lot of risks, but he'll get that oil pumping and give me 50% of the profits. As a partner in that venture, I would absolutely be held responsible if his illegal drilling practices killed people and caused an ecological disaster.
For some people you have to simplify the simplification of the simplification. When I feel that is necessary, I like to make it obvious that I'm dumbing things down so I don't feel as stupid spelling things out.
But, how on earth does a company that is ever found guilty of a manslaughter charge ever serve prison time???
Lots of options: A) Close the doors, permanently or temporarily B) Fines equal to multiple years worth of profit, equivalent to the wages lost when a person is in prison C) Massive government oversight into their operations from the boardroom down to the people manning the rigs, paid for by BP through fines D) Government seizure of assets up to and including the entire company, to be sold off to the highest bidder.
"Oh noes! That screws the shareholders!" Yeah, that's the point. We've already decided, as a society, that shareholders are who companies are really accountable to. The risk that your company gets lots of people killed, destroys ecosystems and regional economies should be factored into your share price.
Oil is a fungible commodity. That is to say, oil of similar quality is worth the same regardless of whom it comes from. That is to say, they cannot raise prices because their competitors (of which there are many, many competitors in the crude oil industry) will eat them alive.
And even ignoring all that, your statement implies that by raising prices they could increase their profit margins. Why wouldn't they be doing that before the fine was levied. That would be like someone at the boardroom meeting says "if we increase our prices by 10% we will see a $4.5 billion increase in profit", if it worked that way they would have done it already.
Most red light cameras take a picture when the light turns red, then another when they detect motion. If you are are in the intersection for the first picture, they don't issue a ticket even if you're in the picture for the second. The real problem is your second point. Just like an IP address doesn't identify a person, neither does a car.