If I have enough money for the $1 bus fare to a taco bell with a $4 special on beef-testicle burritos, am standing in a restaurant where I could buy a meal for $7, and only have $5 in my wallet, and so do not have $10 to risk on the third bet, then the answer is rational. Winning the $2 doesn't help, I'd only have $6 and have to eat beef testicales anyway, might lose and not be able to eat, but if I care to wager going hungry against a better meal...
An `irrational' person would answer (Yes, No, Yes), or (No, Yes, No).
Actually those answers could be perfectly rational depending on how hungry you are, how much cash is in your wallet, and which fast food restaurants are within walking distance.
If you read the algorithm description you'd realize that this is not a change in the algorithm and does not affect the analysis, which was performed for arbitrary parameters, not specific ones. However, the reaction to this move which NIST probably considers a pertty inert move on their part is sure giving NIST a taste of exactly how much their reputation has been soiled. Which is a good thing.
(OT but funny, on the comments section of your link, when I read it the last comment, noting NIST's website is down now due to the government shutdown and asking if that happens often. Some folks need to remember to at least read the daily headlines.)
...someday you say to yourself "Look, for my entire life I've done the 'right thing' and even now it doesn't help my joints stop aching or buy me a bowel movement, so what the hell, let's try something else."
Take a look at the open process for fielding candidates for SHA-3, and tell me that all the people that bothered to submit candidates should be permanently suspect just because NIST asked for candidates and they offered them, and also offered critiques and analysis of competing designs. These are career mathematicians and cryptographers and suddenly everything they do is tainted by "guilt by association" in your mind? That's pretty pathetic.
What happened is as the PP described: good algorithms were chosen and then weakened by intentionally bad choices for parameters. When run with good parameters, those algorithms were as secure as the crypto community could develop at the time. They don't always choose the most secure algorithm of the batch because of performance considerations, but they set strength goals and meet them to the extent that they can be analyzed.
So far they have picked Keccak as SHA-3 and the authors have recommended certain parameters to achieve certain cryptographic strengths for drop-in replacement of SHA2 hashes. Given the media attention I imagine NIST will feel obliged to follow those recommendations, which leaves them with only one thing left to specify, that being the format of the padding (which the Keccak authors have also offered some reasonable options for.)
I've been considering trying arch out because some of the crap from Ubuntu is starting to leak back into Debian, and when I google for how to undo the damage, it is usually arch users I find trying to do things properly. So I'll probably be giving arch a spin the next time I build something in a role that doesn't play to Debian's strengths.
as any Debian user knows, updates are a different world when you step outside the Garden of Eden that is apt-get
This can be true, but I've found kernel updates are the exception. There's a robust, packaging-aware system surrounding kernels built from source that will rebuild all your modules, redo your initrd, fw downlods, etc, and repos for bleeding edge kernels.
I don't think phones need to be attached to anything to do that, but that's beside the point, as how I read the document things such as this heart rate monitor
...might be considered a device that needs to register, but might not, and what makes the difference is entirely how it is marketed, that is what claims are made of it. In which case small demo apps like this might be able to just get away with disclaimers that state "for demo purposes only." Which, without some level of QA, is pretty much all you should be using them for.
No, the mentality prevalent in GNOME is pretty much breaking the OS and other upstream projects they touch as well. Perhaps not the kernel proper, since those devs are hardcore, but that's not all we mean when we say "linux" these days. It's probably not GNOME's "fault" as much as that's just where things tend to come to a head; it's a hotspot of non-unix-like inclinations.
(I say this after going through huge trouble to uncouple JACK from the display system/DBUS and restore it to it's proper place as a daemon. Unfortunately this gets harder every year because contributers to projects like JACK seem to more and more often view everything through the desktop lens and fail to realize that on a UNIX-like system securing a soundcard with a few DRM/SHM regions for shared use by the system and multiple users should be childsplay.)
Lowest common denominator design will lead to a low quality production.
This. A thousand times over. It's at the root of deteriorating software on so many levels, not just in the UI. It's fine to abstract, but abstractions should also have a way to query capabilities of the particular underlying system and make them available should the user of the abstraction wish to utilize them on that system.
CAES caves do leak, just not at a rate that jeopordizes the economics of it. Problem with a leak in a manmade CO2 reservior is events akin to Lake Nyos. Whether that's likely to happen depends on the eventual pressure of these structures, however, after the adsorbtion.
Were that true, they'd be perfectly happy to watch humanity kill itself, since they are so good at doing it in very inventive ways. The anti-population nutters can get a bit extreme, but run of the mill environmentalists are placing a lot of hope, not hate, towards their fellow man by trying to encourage them to help address the problem.
Keep in mind that this is essentially pumping a gas into undeground caverns and making an educated guess that it won't leak back out. Sweeping it under the rug, if you will. Note that the power plants that sequester in this way will have to be built where their emissions can be transported to such sites.
True the proposal expects the CO2 to adsorb to the rock, but how durable a bond that will be long-term, considering this shale has already been cracked to aid in the escape of gas, in that environment down there and in the face of any changes in the environment (like say a geologic event causes the temperature to increase) -- well that doesn't give me the warm fizzies. I'm a bit more enamoured of the sequestration strategies that actually involve bonding CO2 into a solid.through chemical reactions e.g. in concrete manufacture or bonding it to low-impact-cultivated biomass that can either be then buried or sunk to the ocean floor.
I'm not convinced that smart people would immediately spend that on day 1 without waiting a few months for reviews.
With GTA5 you are pretty safe in getting at least your $60 worth of entertainment. If you're worried, you can glean enough information from what has been released in adverts and sneak peaks to confirm a reasonable assumption that it will be at the very minimum playable for days worth of entertainment.
Of course there is always the risk that they will screw the game up in tiny ways you find annoying (e.g. increased "air control" where there was way too much already) but you know that since you put up with its other likely-to-return shortcomings (e.g. no remappable controller buttons) and still enjoyed it, you'll get over that and still enjoy it.
Thanks again. Actually used for propulsion, interesting. I was expecting more of an internal use like a pulse-less pressure turbine for stealth circulation, since obviously legs work better on the macroscopic level for travel over arbitrary terrain..
Even were it so, one has to ask how much quality teaching we get out of tenure versus adjunct over the entire career.
If we made everyone adjunct professors they would simply be disposed of by the market when their effectiveness goes below some point as they eventually burn out, where a tenured professor enjoying a greater level of security and possibly lower stress levels as a result may linger on still doing effective work, just not with the same success rate, and probably with side-benefits not measured by the study, like participation in the academic community that holds a college together. Putting aside the deplorable practice of darwinistically abandoning a person who has dedicated their life to such a noble pursuit once there is a younger more energetic candidate, we have to ammortize the cost to replace the burned-out adjunct into their lifetime career acheivement. If a tenured professor has a -7% penalty but works enough additional years, it's quite likely a wash.
With that definition, there can exist nothing not-natural.
You don't have to go quite that far to render the term "natural" completely meaningless. You can just look at many of the objects connotated as "natural" and find that among them are often found poisons, carcinogens, disruptive species, and diseases,
Which is pretty much why "natural" is a useless word these days, and becoming moreso annually. Terms such as "bio-friendly" with attached meanings of actual consequence are starting to gain traction. "Natural" will eventually become a word used solely by people who want to express that they do not understand how something is made or how it works.
By "reading livinng tissue under the skin" this means what exactly, reading the capacitance of a substance to see where the ridges are? In that case, the hack proposed works if you choose the right material to create a relief with.
SHA1 has been deprecated (mainly as a precaution, but with evidence that attacks were starting to gain a small foothold) since 2005 (by NIST itself even) in favor of the SHA2-240/256/384/512 suite. The question really is why did the selection of SHA1 over a SHA2 variant (I assume in 2007 since that is when the first draft of what became RFC 5639 was published) not raise red flags, in addition to the from-the-sleeve seeds?
It's totally irrelevant if you don't hook your TV up to the internet in the first place.
...assuming you've successfully managed to turn off its ability to join a WiFi network, which assumes the set does what you tell it with the remote.
Besides, any self-respecting slashdotter has their own HTPC hooked up to their essentially HD Monitor
Given the AV industry's insistence on making their crap intentionally as incompatible as they possibly can, I would not be surprised if, after everyone abandons the XBOX and PS4 for HTPCs, people start to go with displays oriented towards the IT market.
However, just for a good measure of paranoia:
so until the TV can be hacked over HDMI
The open vector in that regard is called HDMI-CEC.
Pretty much. If I had to guess it is most likely that a majority of the nicotine that deposits on furniture, walls, etc from an e-cig gets destroyed by the air/light/moisture before being absorbed by "second hand" exposure, and undoubtably the dose for secondhand airborne exposure is rather vastly lower unless there's some hotboxing going on.
But these questions and the actual composition of the vapor given an entirely unstandardized market including diverse flavorings and different carto materials are not something that should just be left entirely unstudied and unregulated. Problem being the process of bringing these products up to snuff (no pun intended) QA-wise is rife with opportunities for both irrational zealots and competing interests to subvert.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the amounts are $1, $5, and $10.
If I have enough money for the $1 bus fare to a taco bell with a $4 special on beef-testicle burritos, am standing in a restaurant where I could buy a meal for $7, and only have $5 in my wallet, and so do not have $10 to risk on the third bet, then the answer is rational. Winning the $2 doesn't help, I'd only have $6 and have to eat beef testicales anyway, might lose and not be able to eat, but if I care to wager going hungry against a better meal...
An `irrational' person would answer (Yes, No, Yes), or (No, Yes, No).
Actually those answers could be perfectly rational depending on how hungry you are, how much cash is in your wallet, and which fast food restaurants are within walking distance.
...though that could have been a pun on the aged. Or half a spoonerism.
If you read the algorithm description you'd realize that this is not a change in the algorithm and does not affect the analysis, which was performed for arbitrary parameters, not specific ones. However, the reaction to this move which NIST probably considers a pertty inert move on their part is sure giving NIST a taste of exactly how much their reputation has been soiled. Which is a good thing.
(OT but funny, on the comments section of your link, when I read it the last comment, noting NIST's website is down now due to the government shutdown and asking if that happens often. Some folks need to remember to at least read the daily headlines.)
...someday you say to yourself "Look, for my entire life I've done the 'right thing' and even now it doesn't help my joints stop aching or buy me a bowel movement, so what the hell, let's try something else."
Take a look at the open process for fielding candidates for SHA-3, and tell me that all the people that bothered to submit candidates should be permanently suspect just because NIST asked for candidates and they offered them, and also offered critiques and analysis of competing designs. These are career mathematicians and cryptographers and suddenly everything they do is tainted by "guilt by association" in your mind? That's pretty pathetic.
What happened is as the PP described: good algorithms were chosen and then weakened by intentionally bad choices for parameters. When run with good parameters, those algorithms were as secure as the crypto community could develop at the time. They don't always choose the most secure algorithm of the batch because of performance considerations, but they set strength goals and meet them to the extent that they can be analyzed.
So far they have picked Keccak as SHA-3 and the authors have recommended certain parameters to achieve certain cryptographic strengths for drop-in replacement of SHA2 hashes. Given the media attention I imagine NIST will feel obliged to follow those recommendations, which leaves them with only one thing left to specify, that being the format of the padding (which the Keccak authors have also offered some reasonable options for.)
I've been considering trying arch out because some of the crap from Ubuntu is starting to leak back into Debian, and when I google for how to undo the damage, it is usually arch users I find trying to do things properly. So I'll probably be giving arch a spin the next time I build something in a role that doesn't play to Debian's strengths.
as any Debian user knows, updates are a different world when you step outside the Garden of Eden that is apt-get
This can be true, but I've found kernel updates are the exception. There's a robust, packaging-aware system surrounding kernels built from source that will rebuild all your modules, redo your initrd, fw downlods, etc, and repos for bleeding edge kernels.
a free/cheap pulse monitor simply impossible
I don't think phones need to be attached to anything to do that, but that's beside the point, as how I read the document things such as this heart rate monitor
No, the mentality prevalent in GNOME is pretty much breaking the OS and other upstream projects they touch as well. Perhaps not the kernel proper, since those devs are hardcore, but that's not all we mean when we say "linux" these days. It's probably not GNOME's "fault" as much as that's just where things tend to come to a head; it's a hotspot of non-unix-like inclinations.
(I say this after going through huge trouble to uncouple JACK from the display system/DBUS and restore it to it's proper place as a daemon. Unfortunately this gets harder every year because contributers to projects like JACK seem to more and more often view everything through the desktop lens and fail to realize that on a UNIX-like system securing a soundcard with a few DRM/SHM regions for shared use by the system and multiple users should be childsplay.)
Lowest common denominator design will lead to a low quality production.
This. A thousand times over. It's at the root of deteriorating software on so many levels, not just in the UI. It's fine to abstract, but abstractions should also have a way to query capabilities of the particular underlying system and make them available should the user of the abstraction wish to utilize them on that system.
CAES caves do leak, just not at a rate that jeopordizes the economics of it. Problem with a leak in a manmade CO2 reservior is events akin to Lake Nyos. Whether that's likely to happen depends on the eventual pressure of these structures, however, after the adsorbtion.
Were that true, they'd be perfectly happy to watch humanity kill itself, since they are so good at doing it in very inventive ways. The anti-population nutters can get a bit extreme, but run of the mill environmentalists are placing a lot of hope, not hate, towards their fellow man by trying to encourage them to help address the problem.
A while!?!? this is "from now until 2030"
Keep in mind that this is essentially pumping a gas into undeground caverns and making an educated guess that it won't leak back out. Sweeping it under the rug, if you will. Note that the power plants that sequester in this way will have to be built where their emissions can be transported to such sites.
True the proposal expects the CO2 to adsorb to the rock, but how durable a bond that will be long-term, considering this shale has already been cracked to aid in the escape of gas, in that environment down there and in the face of any changes in the environment (like say a geologic event causes the temperature to increase) -- well that doesn't give me the warm fizzies. I'm a bit more enamoured of the sequestration strategies that actually involve bonding CO2 into a solid.through chemical reactions e.g. in concrete manufacture or bonding it to low-impact-cultivated biomass that can either be then buried or sunk to the ocean floor.
I'm not convinced that smart people would immediately spend that on day 1 without waiting a few months for reviews.
With GTA5 you are pretty safe in getting at least your $60 worth of entertainment. If you're worried, you can glean enough information from what has been released in adverts and sneak peaks to confirm a reasonable assumption that it will be at the very minimum playable for days worth of entertainment.
Of course there is always the risk that they will screw the game up in tiny ways you find annoying (e.g. increased "air control" where there was way too much already) but you know that since you put up with its other likely-to-return shortcomings (e.g. no remappable controller buttons) and still enjoyed it, you'll get over that and still enjoy it.
Thanks again. Actually used for propulsion, interesting. I was expecting more of an internal use like a pulse-less pressure turbine for stealth circulation, since obviously legs work better on the macroscopic level for travel over arbitrary terrain..
Even were it so, one has to ask how much quality teaching we get out of tenure versus adjunct over the entire career.
If we made everyone adjunct professors they would simply be disposed of by the market when their effectiveness goes below some point as they eventually burn out, where a tenured professor enjoying a greater level of security and possibly lower stress levels as a result may linger on still doing effective work, just not with the same success rate, and probably with side-benefits not measured by the study, like participation in the academic community that holds a college together. Putting aside the deplorable practice of darwinistically abandoning a person who has dedicated their life to such a noble pursuit once there is a younger more energetic candidate, we have to ammortize the cost to replace the burned-out adjunct into their lifetime career acheivement. If a tenured professor has a -7% penalty but works enough additional years, it's quite likely a wash.
With that definition, there can exist nothing not-natural.
You don't have to go quite that far to render the term "natural" completely meaningless. You can just look at many of the objects connotated as "natural" and find that among them are often found poisons, carcinogens, disruptive species, and diseases,
Which is pretty much why "natural" is a useless word these days, and becoming moreso annually. Terms such as "bio-friendly" with attached meanings of actual consequence are starting to gain traction. "Natural" will eventually become a word used solely by people who want to express that they do not understand how something is made or how it works.
Often I've wondered whether there was an actual evolved free wheel anywhere at all in nature. I guess that marginally meets the criteria. Neat.
By "reading livinng tissue under the skin" this means what exactly, reading the capacitance of a substance to see where the ridges are? In that case, the hack proposed works if you choose the right material to create a relief with.
SHA1 has been deprecated (mainly as a precaution, but with evidence that attacks were starting to gain a small foothold) since 2005 (by NIST itself even) in favor of the SHA2-240/256/384/512 suite. The question really is why did the selection of SHA1 over a SHA2 variant (I assume in 2007 since that is when the first draft of what became RFC 5639 was published) not raise red flags, in addition to the from-the-sleeve seeds?
OTP is a bit of overkill, using a shared secret to generate intermediate keys buys you a lot of lifetime off a small amount of crypto material.
It's totally irrelevant if you don't hook your TV up to the internet in the first place.
...assuming you've successfully managed to turn off its ability to join a WiFi network, which assumes the set does what you tell it with the remote.
Besides, any self-respecting slashdotter has their own HTPC hooked up to their essentially HD Monitor
Given the AV industry's insistence on making their crap intentionally as incompatible as they possibly can, I would not be surprised if, after everyone abandons the XBOX and PS4 for HTPCs, people start to go with displays oriented towards the IT market.
However, just for a good measure of paranoia:
so until the TV can be hacked over HDMI
The open vector in that regard is called HDMI-CEC.
However, they have not declared them (which means enumerating them) to any external authority. Just to be specific.
Pretty much. If I had to guess it is most likely that a majority of the nicotine that deposits on furniture, walls, etc from an e-cig gets destroyed by the air/light/moisture before being absorbed by "second hand" exposure, and undoubtably the dose for secondhand airborne exposure is rather vastly lower unless there's some hotboxing going on.
But these questions and the actual composition of the vapor given an entirely unstandardized market including diverse flavorings and different carto materials are not something that should just be left entirely unstudied and unregulated. Problem being the process of bringing these products up to snuff (no pun intended) QA-wise is rife with opportunities for both irrational zealots and competing interests to subvert.