Because, they have the "mobile device's unique advertising ID"
And at least on iOS, that unique ID is different for every distinct application. In fact, it is even different if you uininstall and then reinstall the same application.
Nobody has any "right" to privacy beyond the fact that they might want it, and one may have the delusion that anything that a person wants is something that they somehow also have a right to have.
My point, above, is only that people who have not necessarily done anything wrong still desire privacy, and it is simply a matter of being humanely decent to eachother that compels every one of us to respect it. Man-made laws in excess of this which impose restrictions on what people are allowed to do which might interfere with someone else's privacy are a nice-to-have, but again, only in that privacy is something that is generally desirable in the first place.
Oh, it's very similar.... the fact that there are so-called practical reasons for wearing clothing that have nothing to do with privacy is irrelevant, because it is still the single most overpowering reason... so much so that we even have actual laws that govern what levels of clothing are considered "decent".
In a quantum computer [difficulty] tends to be dominated by the number of qubits that are required.
True, but it's still a fixed cost for any given quantum computer and amortizes over a large number of operations that can be done by that computer.
Quantum computers are more difficult to make the more qubits you need to stick together
And I'd suggest that this principle is only true today, while there are actual real inviolable reasons why factoring large numbers is hard for any conventional computer (unless P=NP can be proven), there are no such theoretical barriers on how difficult quantum computers are inherently hard to make.
RSA can be broken by solving the discrete logarithm problem, which QC's are also very good at... As long as the size of the quantum computer can scale linearly with the size of the key, it can still be efficiently solved with a quantum computer.
Not sure if you were being sarcastic. You may be concerned, however, that the 2048 bit value is not even two full orders of magnitude harder for a QC to factor than a 100 bit number, compared to over 500 orders of magnitude for a conventional alogorithm.
You want an example of proof by contradiction? Sure. Here's the most obvious one I can think of.
If the square root of 2 is a rational number, then it can be described as the ratio of two integers, a/b, where a and b are both integers, and have no common factor other than 1. Thus:
sqrt(2)=a/b.
Squaring both sides give us
2=a^2/b^2.
This can be rearranged as:
2b^2=a^2.
This means that a^2 is divisible by two, and therefore even. But since a is an integer, and the square of any odd integer is odd, then that must mean that a is also even. If a is divisible by 2, however, then that means that a^2 is divisible by 4. This means that b^2 must also be divisible by 2. However, since b is supposed to be an integer, and b^2 is even, that means that b must be even. This contradicts the assumption that a and b could have no common factors, so therefore no integers a and b exist that can satisfy the criteria and the square root of two is not rational.
A proof by contradiction works by taking the properties that you supposedly know about a thing because of the definition, and then showing that those properties don't actually apply... note, the properties that you are starting with are not merely assumed without proof, they are derived directly from the definition. In this case, a rational number *IS* a value that can be expressed as a/b, and it is further possible to reduce any rational number into a lowest form such that a and b have no common factor other than 1. The above proof, however, shows that no such number actually exists., so the square root of two is necessarily irrational.
Likewise, the alleged aether, the medium through which light propogates, was shown to not have the properties that would be essential for it to have if it were actually such a medium, providing solid evidence that it does not exist. Maxwell's equations further showed that no material substrate is required for such propogation and Einstein's theory put the nail in the coffin. Anything else that exists that somebody might want to call the "aether" may or may not exist, but it is categorically *NOT* the medium through which light waves propogate, and therefore does not fit the definition of what the aether is supposed to be.
The notion that you cannot prove the non-existence of anything is only true when you do not have a good definition of the thing you are supposedly looking for in the first place. It is common folk-logic, but is not founded on actual formal logic.
I'm telling you now for the last time: the non existence of "something non existing" can not be proven
Again, you asserting this does not make it true. Formal logic does not make any special case for negative propositions, and any affirmative proposition can always be restated as an equivalently truthful negative proposition (as well as the opposite).
I suggest that you research the concepts of formal logic and proof by contradiction, because it is apparent that you are putting the concept of what you may have heard other people tell you before what you can discover for yourself to be true.
Because failing to prove "something is there" does not mean "something is not there"
It does when you have a precise enough definition of what you you were looking for. You don't get anywhere by moving the goalposts around and saying that the original definition doesn't apply just because it doesn't fit the observed data.
If you want to suggest that the michelson moorely experiment was not looking for the right thing, I would suggest that you are talking about something other than the aether in the first place.
Honestly, I expect if you blew up that fan-made clip to watch on a 60 foot screen, you'd probably notice it far more than you did watching this video on a comparatively tiny computer monitor.
Yeah, I was looking for a comment like this, and if I hadn't found one I was going to point it out myself. And of course, as you suggest, the manufacturing processes can be refined over time, there is no inherent need that they remain just as polluting as they are currently, and as cleaner methods are discovered, they can be utilized incrementally, meanwhile the vehicles themselves remain entirely emission-free.
Simply saying there is no proof that the aether does not exist does not mean that it is so. I have neither the time nor inclination to explain to you why the michaleson moorely experiment provided incontrovertible evidence that the aether does not exist, but if you are so inclined, you can research it on your own time. I believe a synopsis of why it is so is even explained in the wikipedia link I mentioned above, if you want the reader's digest version.
My point being that you aren't going to prove anything to a person who is predisposed towards the discounting of evidence that would ordinarily prove or disprove something, and that failure to do so does not mean that the proof is invalid.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I'm wondering... Honestly, this seems to me like only so much smoke.
Nobody has any "right" to privacy beyond the fact that they might want it, and one may have the delusion that anything that a person wants is something that they somehow also have a right to have.
My point, above, is only that people who have not necessarily done anything wrong still desire privacy, and it is simply a matter of being humanely decent to eachother that compels every one of us to respect it. Man-made laws in excess of this which impose restrictions on what people are allowed to do which might interfere with someone else's privacy are a nice-to-have, but again, only in that privacy is something that is generally desirable in the first place.
That's not supported by basic psychology, that is supported by anecdotal evidence.
Both ClearInk and ACEP appear to promise that. 2019 will be a good year, methinks.
I gave the wrong link for ClearInk. This is the one I meant to paste/
Clearink
Oh, it's very similar.... the fact that there are so-called practical reasons for wearing clothing that have nothing to do with privacy is irrelevant, because it is still the single most overpowering reason... so much so that we even have actual laws that govern what levels of clothing are considered "decent".
True, but it's still a fixed cost for any given quantum computer and amortizes over a large number of operations that can be done by that computer.
And I'd suggest that this principle is only true today, while there are actual real inviolable reasons why factoring large numbers is hard for any conventional computer (unless P=NP can be proven), there are no such theoretical barriers on how difficult quantum computers are inherently hard to make.
RSA can be broken by solving the discrete logarithm problem, which QC's are also very good at... As long as the size of the quantum computer can scale linearly with the size of the key, it can still be efficiently solved with a quantum computer.
Not sure if you were being sarcastic. You may be concerned, however, that the 2048 bit value is not even two full orders of magnitude harder for a QC to factor than a 100 bit number, compared to over 500 orders of magnitude for a conventional alogorithm.
And yet absolutely every person I've ever heard make this statement was fully clothed when they made it.
People have things to hide not because there is anything wrong with them, but because they are private. Full stop.
You want an example of proof by contradiction? Sure. Here's the most obvious one I can think of.
If the square root of 2 is a rational number, then it can be described as the ratio of two integers, a/b, where a and b are both integers, and have no common factor other than 1. Thus:
sqrt(2)=a/b.
Squaring both sides give us
2=a^2/b^2.
This can be rearranged as:
2b^2=a^2.
This means that a^2 is divisible by two, and therefore even. But since a is an integer, and the square of any odd integer is odd, then that must mean that a is also even. If a is divisible by 2, however, then that means that a^2 is divisible by 4. This means that b^2 must also be divisible by 2. However, since b is supposed to be an integer, and b^2 is even, that means that b must be even. This contradicts the assumption that a and b could have no common factors, so therefore no integers a and b exist that can satisfy the criteria and the square root of two is not rational.
A proof by contradiction works by taking the properties that you supposedly know about a thing because of the definition, and then showing that those properties don't actually apply... note, the properties that you are starting with are not merely assumed without proof, they are derived directly from the definition. In this case, a rational number *IS* a value that can be expressed as a/b, and it is further possible to reduce any rational number into a lowest form such that a and b have no common factor other than 1. The above proof, however, shows that no such number actually exists., so the square root of two is necessarily irrational.
Likewise, the alleged aether, the medium through which light propogates, was shown to not have the properties that would be essential for it to have if it were actually such a medium, providing solid evidence that it does not exist. Maxwell's equations further showed that no material substrate is required for such propogation and Einstein's theory put the nail in the coffin. Anything else that exists that somebody might want to call the "aether" may or may not exist, but it is categorically *NOT* the medium through which light waves propogate, and therefore does not fit the definition of what the aether is supposed to be.
The notion that you cannot prove the non-existence of anything is only true when you do not have a good definition of the thing you are supposedly looking for in the first place. It is common folk-logic, but is not founded on actual formal logic.
Again, you asserting this does not make it true. Formal logic does not make any special case for negative propositions, and any affirmative proposition can always be restated as an equivalently truthful negative proposition (as well as the opposite).
I suggest that you research the concepts of formal logic and proof by contradiction, because it is apparent that you are putting the concept of what you may have heard other people tell you before what you can discover for yourself to be true.
This.
Exactly.
I would rather have no privacy at all than the mere illusion of one.
Hell, even *cubicles* are a better idea than this is, and I loathe cubicles.
The ideal is a compromise... oversized offices, containing teams of no more than about 6-8 people each, who all work closely together.
It does when you have a precise enough definition of what you you were looking for. You don't get anywhere by moving the goalposts around and saying that the original definition doesn't apply just because it doesn't fit the observed data.
If you want to suggest that the michelson moorely experiment was not looking for the right thing, I would suggest that you are talking about something other than the aether in the first place.
In-city viewing is less than ideal, of course, but it's not impossible to find darker areas, even within a metropolis city limits.
I can't imagine that hobbyist astronomers are going to be very thrilled about this.
I would assume that such a position is only contractual anyways, so what's the problem?
I'm guessing you've never heard of slander/libel laws?
Two words, "small screen".
Honestly, I expect if you blew up that fan-made clip to watch on a 60 foot screen, you'd probably notice it far more than you did watching this video on a comparatively tiny computer monitor.
Yeah, I was looking for a comment like this, and if I hadn't found one I was going to point it out myself. And of course, as you suggest, the manufacturing processes can be refined over time, there is no inherent need that they remain just as polluting as they are currently, and as cleaner methods are discovered, they can be utilized incrementally, meanwhile the vehicles themselves remain entirely emission-free.
Simply saying there is no proof that the aether does not exist does not mean that it is so. I have neither the time nor inclination to explain to you why the michaleson moorely experiment provided incontrovertible evidence that the aether does not exist, but if you are so inclined, you can research it on your own time. I believe a synopsis of why it is so is even explained in the wikipedia link I mentioned above, if you want the reader's digest version.
And in other news, the moon landing was faked...
Oh, and the earth is still flat.
My point being that you aren't going to prove anything to a person who is predisposed towards the discounting of evidence that would ordinarily prove or disprove something, and that failure to do so does not mean that the proof is invalid.
Michelson Moorley experiment, most obviously.
And yes, it actually disproved the existence of the aether.
What, do you think that proving that the aether doesn't exist isn't proving a negative?