Perhaps you should read it. Sometimes it's done, sometimes it isn't. IIRC the USSR had a rather high ownership of firearms...of course, I don't know their distribution. Perhaps most of them were in Siberia (i.e., rural rather than urban).
Doesn't that depend on the CPU? I though I remembered that there was no such requirement for the Arm, only for Intel-style cpus. Of course only the Intel-style cpus have any software...
Think of it as a self-organizing structure composed of pieces (people) that each act so as to increase their own power and perceived worth. You don't need a large conspiracy to explain how it acts. (You do need to disassemble the structure totally, and carefully reimplement it, this time considering the nature of the materials from which you build it.)
OK, make that 50 years then. What I SHOULD have said was "in my lifetime", or actually "since I started to read". (I don't remember hearing that the US declared war during WWII, but there was certainly reason to do so. 1917 sounds about right for what I remember.)
OTOH, there are quite a few times earlier when I don't belief that war was actually declared before the US commenced fighting. Having the president also be the commander-in-chief encourages a bit of military adventurism. OTOH, it may lessen the chance of a coup d'etat.
Legislators could deny the executive the right to spend any money to maintain the NSA. Neither of my senators, however, would. Both have come out in support of the NSA since the wholesale wiretapping has become public.
They are important, but they have become so criminal that it is too dangerous to keep them. Delete the agency and start a new one from scratch. Hire expertise from outside to train the staff, AND SUPERVISE!!!!
This is excessive paranoia. What you should consider is that people are extremely bad at judging risks.
Of course, it's also true that those who stand to benefit from campaigns "against terrorism" are also the people who are telling us to be afraid of it, but that's mainly due to self-interest rather than conspiracy. (I'm not denying that there ARE conspiracies of that sort within the government, I'm doubting that they are that organized and centrally governed. I think more it's lots of small groups of people each pushing for their part of the govt. to get more funding.)
P.S.: The effect is about the same, so this is consistent with the facts you have observed. And it is also true that getting rid of the worst centers spreading paranoia is probably the best sanitation measure. But I don't really think there are many "evil genuises" masterminding a large conspiracy. (Admittedly I sometimes feel the say way you have verbalized, but I don't believe it when I think about it rationally. Of course, once in awhile evidence surfaces that there ARE people who count as evil masterminds, but they rarely work within the government except as elected officials.
You are making assumptions that their purposes are what they claim they are. It's quite possible to presume that they lied about what their purposes are, and that they have quite successfully executed plans that succeed in achieving those purposes. They may well not be the incompetent criminals they pretend to be, but instead be rather competent ones.
You left out one major factor: Nobody ever explained to the US citizenry why it was reasonable for us to be in there in the first place, so nobody wanted to go.
That was one reason the US switched to "the volunteer army". When you volunteer, you have given up the right to complain about being sent to a "war". ("War" is in quotes, because the US Senate hasn't declared war in the last century, so it can hardly be considered a war, legally. Legally I believe it's just an unjustified, probably unjustifiable, use of deadly force against foreigners.)
It's a bit trickier than that. You need a precisely spaced grid of materials with a different density. Holes aren't necessary. This kind of thing up above grould has been done with grids of posts. But if you're using holes, you can't run a sewer in the same area. It ruins the "crystal" structure.
Since the focusing is frequency dependent, I don't think you could use the same structure to focus both tsunami and ordinary waves. Still, you may have the inspiration for a new form of wave driven generator.
Tsunami's are infrequent enough that aiming them at a reservoir to power a generator would be rather inefficient. I doubt it could be cost effective. And since it's salt water, most other uses of the reservoir would be impratctical. It would be nice if you could just bend it 90 degrees, but I think that would requrie knowing where the site of initiation would be. Diverting it, without specifying exactly where to can be done without knowing the angle of incidence.
Don't assume that everyone who works for a company wants what the CEO wants. Some of them think he's stupid for wanting some things, and consider other things much more important.
So those articles aren't in contradiction, you're just hearing from different voices.
Tracked and logged, probably. At least everything significant (and a lot that isn't, of course). Decoded? Well, no. Many cyphers were weakened, but some are secure. Anyone who really cares can use a secure code. But possibly not a secure public key encryption. That depends on the person that you are trying to reach have the same secure mechanism that you do, and THAT requires pre-arrangement. And the govt. has acted to weaken the standard public key systems.
FWIW, one-time-pad systems have never been seriously threatened. And there are also reasonable arguments that the systems (AES?) that the govt uses for it's on secure communications are also safe. But I suspect that AES iwill eventually be crackable with a quantum computer, so you shouldn't use it on anything you think they will be looking hard at 5-10 years from now. Steganography also has much to recommend it...but be sure that they message is also encoded. Steganography just makes the messages less noticible, until the particular technique is recognized. Then it makes them more obvious. (So if you're going to do this, be sure you also send encoded random numbers. And probably also some false messages...but be sure that they aren't incriminating, just that they direct suspicion to those you deem wothry of being suspected.)
You misunderstand them. 100% of the world looks like the enemy. They don't even exclude themselves. The odd thing is that they're wrong. Some people actually support them.
Fusion power is so far from being ready that it's still research. There are, however, reactor designs that will burn up almost all the radioactives in the fuel. Don't remember the name, but they exist. I'm not that thrilled by Thorium reactors. It has the advantage of abundant fuel, but it doesn't really solve any of the other problems. (OTOH, it doesn't make them worse.)
FWIW, as long as "Nuclear power requires huge government subsidies for liability insurance", I'm not going to believe it's a good idea. Uranium mining isn't inherently any worse than, say, coal mining. Which isn't saying it isn't apallingly destructive, it's asking what alternative you are proposing. Solar cells depend on various rare earths that are also pretty destructive to mine, and it has the disadvantage of not being a good baseline load generator unless you have a global power network (or a REALLY good way to store power).
FWIW, the best current "green" baseline power generator that's non-nuclear (and outside of conventional hydro) is probably wave generators. (Assuming everywhere it near a coast....that's true for most of humanity.) Some designs are pretty reliable and constant, but they don't generate much. Tide generators are predictable, but they have peak and slack periods of generation. Still, the time from slack to peak is never more than 12 hours. But the cheapest versions are dependant on local geography. (For that matter, if your local geography is right you can use geothermal. Another baseline load generator, and this time not too weak, if your geography is right.)
One green source that should work, but still has teething problems is melted salts. Basically you use solar power to melt some kind of salt, and then use the heat extracted from that to generate power. This is quite promising, but there are still lots of teething problems. It qualifies as a baseline load generator that can be used in almost any desert area, and some others. But it's not something that can be reasonably done on a small scale. Thermal storage loses heat, but well designed large containers lose heat a lot more slowly. I consider this as still in research, but fairly late in the process. If someone REALLY pushed it they could probably start building a large plant in 5 years. It would, however, have LOTS of problems. Better to get a few more bugs out before pushing too hard.
For me the year of the Linux desktop was around 2000. (Red Hat 4.2) This was largely because of license changes by MS, but that was the year I switched over to Linux. My wife was already on Apple. Her year of the Linux desktop was around 2007. Because of changes in the Apple licensing, which meant that I no longer felt willing to do support work on an Apple system. And also because the music score editing programs on Linux had reached a bare minimum of acceptability. (She's still quite unsatisfied.)
For other people, other considerations apply. I doubt that it will EVER be the choice for all desktop users, unless other groups stop making desktop systems.
P.S.: The Linux desktop environment has deteriorated markedly over the last two years. The peak thus far was will late editions of KDE3. Gnome2 was acceptable. Currently I'm using a Debian LXDE, and my wife is using an Ubuntu-lts flavored KDE.
P.P.S: My neighbors across the street use Apple. They don't seem to have any fewer problems than does my wife, but it's generally things like "the keyboard is turned off", which I can asist them with without agreeing to an Apple EULA.
Others have pointed out the existence of a download link, so allow me to point out that the project is at release 0.2. If you aren't willing to compile something at that release level, you should probably stay away from it.
Nice troll. So good I'm replying even though I recognize it.
You are clearly demonstrating an ignorance of Ruby and also of the history of Python. (I'm not enamored of the whitespace indentation, either, but there were justifications [reasons?], and if you use tabs for the leading whitespace and spaces internally, then it's not that bad, but merely takes a bit of dicipline.)
The real problem with both Python and Ruby is the lack of decent ways of documenting code. That's one thing that Java got right. Ruby tried, but it's default mechanism isn't much better than markup. (YARD is a better alternative.) With Python, fortunately you can use Doxygen. That's not an ideal solution, but it works. Epydoc was much better, but it doesn't understand inheritance in Python3.
Note that this is a difficult problem that every language needs to come to grips with. C/C++ were fortunate in that they didn't have much competition, so lots of people wrote tools for documenting them. Post Java things are a lot tougher. It would be nice if there were some standard documentation system for all languages, but in order to work it would need to be so flexible that it would be too clumsy to use. Good documentation tools need to understand the language, and know about things like inheritance, private, and whether modification of a parameter within the routine can cause changes outside. So I think that every language is going to continue to need to come to grips with it individually. N.B.: I'm talking about creating documentation for programmers, not users. That requires a totally different approach, and is best handled by tools like LibreWriter.
P.S.: Python's decision to make Sphinx the official documentation tool for the language is one of the most boneheaded things that has been done during the entire development of the language.
But I don't have a clear idea of what it looked like.
I think this is probably common in twitter posts, as the short nature of the post encourages considerable ambiguity and lack of precision. OTOH, it seems a clear indication that she's unqualified as a PR executive.
That wasn't exactly a denial. I.e., they didn't deny what they did, they denied doing it maliciously. They didn't deny doing it because of incomptetnce. They didn't deny doing it because of placing trust in people they should have doubted. They didn't deny...
They issued a statement that it is essentially impossible to prove false, no matter WHAT evidence turns up. And that makes it meaninless.
You didn't understand he answer. The postulated problem with the eliptic code is NOT the algorithm. It is being presumed that the algorithm is properly implemented. It's with the data chosen to initialize the routine. And nobody has been able to show whether that's a weak selection of initializers or not...but the hypothesis is that the NSA caused the RSA to select those particular initializers BECAUSE they are weak. It could equally be because they were strong. We don't know.
Having access to the code would not solve this problem. (There are other problems that it would solve. E.g., we are trusting that the implementation was accurate. But that's not where suspicion has been focused.)
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you should read it. Sometimes it's done, sometimes it isn't. IIRC the USSR had a rather high ownership of firearms...of course, I don't know their distribution. Perhaps most of them were in Siberia (i.e., rural rather than urban).
Doesn't that depend on the CPU? I though I remembered that there was no such requirement for the Arm, only for Intel-style cpus. Of course only the Intel-style cpus have any software...
If the expertise doesn't exist outside it, then redevelop it from scratch. The NSA is just too dangerous to be allowed to continue to exist.
Think of it as a self-organizing structure composed of pieces (people) that each act so as to increase their own power and perceived worth. You don't need a large conspiracy to explain how it acts. (You do need to disassemble the structure totally, and carefully reimplement it, this time considering the nature of the materials from which you build it.)
OK, make that 50 years then. What I SHOULD have said was "in my lifetime", or actually "since I started to read". (I don't remember hearing that the US declared war during WWII, but there was certainly reason to do so. 1917 sounds about right for what I remember.)
OTOH, there are quite a few times earlier when I don't belief that war was actually declared before the US commenced fighting. Having the president also be the commander-in-chief encourages a bit of military adventurism. OTOH, it may lessen the chance of a coup d'etat.
Legislators could deny the executive the right to spend any money to maintain the NSA. Neither of my senators, however, would. Both have come out in support of the NSA since the wholesale wiretapping has become public.
They are important, but they have become so criminal that it is too dangerous to keep them. Delete the agency and start a new one from scratch. Hire expertise from outside to train the staff, AND SUPERVISE!!!!
This is excessive paranoia. What you should consider is that people are extremely bad at judging risks.
Of course, it's also true that those who stand to benefit from campaigns "against terrorism" are also the people who are telling us to be afraid of it, but that's mainly due to self-interest rather than conspiracy. (I'm not denying that there ARE conspiracies of that sort within the government, I'm doubting that they are that organized and centrally governed. I think more it's lots of small groups of people each pushing for their part of the govt. to get more funding.)
P.S.: The effect is about the same, so this is consistent with the facts you have observed. And it is also true that getting rid of the worst centers spreading paranoia is probably the best sanitation measure. But I don't really think there are many "evil genuises" masterminding a large conspiracy. (Admittedly I sometimes feel the say way you have verbalized, but I don't believe it when I think about it rationally. Of course, once in awhile evidence surfaces that there ARE people who count as evil masterminds, but they rarely work within the government except as elected officials.
Perhaps if you made raping elected officials legal...
You are making assumptions that their purposes are what they claim they are. It's quite possible to presume that they lied about what their purposes are, and that they have quite successfully executed plans that succeed in achieving those purposes. They may well not be the incompetent criminals they pretend to be, but instead be rather competent ones.
You left out one major factor:
Nobody ever explained to the US citizenry why it was reasonable for us to be in there in the first place, so nobody wanted to go.
That was one reason the US switched to "the volunteer army". When you volunteer, you have given up the right to complain about being sent to a "war". ("War" is in quotes, because the US Senate hasn't declared war in the last century, so it can hardly be considered a war, legally. Legally I believe it's just an unjustified, probably unjustifiable, use of deadly force against foreigners.)
Why would they need immunosuppressant drugs?
It's a bit trickier than that. You need a precisely spaced grid of materials with a different density. Holes aren't necessary. This kind of thing up above grould has been done with grids of posts. But if you're using holes, you can't run a sewer in the same area. It ruins the "crystal" structure.
Since the focusing is frequency dependent, I don't think you could use the same structure to focus both tsunami and ordinary waves. Still, you may have the inspiration for a new form of wave driven generator.
Tsunami's are infrequent enough that aiming them at a reservoir to power a generator would be rather inefficient. I doubt it could be cost effective. And since it's salt water, most other uses of the reservoir would be impratctical. It would be nice if you could just bend it 90 degrees, but I think that would requrie knowing where the site of initiation would be. Diverting it, without specifying exactly where to can be done without knowing the angle of incidence.
Don't assume that everyone who works for a company wants what the CEO wants. Some of them think he's stupid for wanting some things, and consider other things much more important.
So those articles aren't in contradiction, you're just hearing from different voices.
Tracked and logged, probably. At least everything significant (and a lot that isn't, of course). Decoded? Well, no. Many cyphers were weakened, but some are secure. Anyone who really cares can use a secure code. But possibly not a secure public key encryption. That depends on the person that you are trying to reach have the same secure mechanism that you do, and THAT requires pre-arrangement. And the govt. has acted to weaken the standard public key systems.
FWIW, one-time-pad systems have never been seriously threatened. And there are also reasonable arguments that the systems (AES?) that the govt uses for it's on secure communications are also safe. But I suspect that AES iwill eventually be crackable with a quantum computer, so you shouldn't use it on anything you think they will be looking hard at 5-10 years from now. Steganography also has much to recommend it...but be sure that they message is also encoded. Steganography just makes the messages less noticible, until the particular technique is recognized. Then it makes them more obvious. (So if you're going to do this, be sure you also send encoded random numbers. And probably also some false messages...but be sure that they aren't incriminating, just that they direct suspicion to those you deem wothry of being suspected.)
You misunderstand them. 100% of the world looks like the enemy. They don't even exclude themselves. The odd thing is that they're wrong. Some people actually support them.
Fusion power is so far from being ready that it's still research. There are, however, reactor designs that will burn up almost all the radioactives in the fuel. Don't remember the name, but they exist. I'm not that thrilled by Thorium reactors. It has the advantage of abundant fuel, but it doesn't really solve any of the other problems. (OTOH, it doesn't make them worse.)
FWIW, as long as "Nuclear power requires huge government subsidies for liability insurance", I'm not going to believe it's a good idea. Uranium mining isn't inherently any worse than, say, coal mining. Which isn't saying it isn't apallingly destructive, it's asking what alternative you are proposing. Solar cells depend on various rare earths that are also pretty destructive to mine, and it has the disadvantage of not being a good baseline load generator unless you have a global power network (or a REALLY good way to store power).
FWIW, the best current "green" baseline power generator that's non-nuclear (and outside of conventional hydro) is probably wave generators. (Assuming everywhere it near a coast....that's true for most of humanity.) Some designs are pretty reliable and constant, but they don't generate much. Tide generators are predictable, but they have peak and slack periods of generation. Still, the time from slack to peak is never more than 12 hours. But the cheapest versions are dependant on local geography. (For that matter, if your local geography is right you can use geothermal. Another baseline load generator, and this time not too weak, if your geography is right.)
One green source that should work, but still has teething problems is melted salts. Basically you use solar power to melt some kind of salt, and then use the heat extracted from that to generate power. This is quite promising, but there are still lots of teething problems. It qualifies as a baseline load generator that can be used in almost any desert area, and some others. But it's not something that can be reasonably done on a small scale. Thermal storage loses heat, but well designed large containers lose heat a lot more slowly. I consider this as still in research, but fairly late in the process. If someone REALLY pushed it they could probably start building a large plant in 5 years. It would, however, have LOTS of problems. Better to get a few more bugs out before pushing too hard.
For who?
For me the year of the Linux desktop was around 2000. (Red Hat 4.2) This was largely because of license changes by MS, but that was the year I switched over to Linux. My wife was already on Apple. Her year of the Linux desktop was around 2007. Because of changes in the Apple licensing, which meant that I no longer felt willing to do support work on an Apple system. And also because the music score editing programs on Linux had reached a bare minimum of acceptability. (She's still quite unsatisfied.)
For other people, other considerations apply. I doubt that it will EVER be the choice for all desktop users, unless other groups stop making desktop systems.
P.S.: The Linux desktop environment has deteriorated markedly over the last two years. The peak thus far was will late editions of KDE3. Gnome2 was acceptable. Currently I'm using a Debian LXDE, and my wife is using an Ubuntu-lts flavored KDE.
P.P.S: My neighbors across the street use Apple. They don't seem to have any fewer problems than does my wife, but it's generally things like "the keyboard is turned off", which I can asist them with without agreeing to an Apple EULA.
Others have pointed out the existence of a download link, so allow me to point out that the project is at release 0.2. If you aren't willing to compile something at that release level, you should probably stay away from it.
How about starting by defining what you mean by the term "erasable internet"? It could mean LOTS of different things.
Nice troll. So good I'm replying even though I recognize it.
You are clearly demonstrating an ignorance of Ruby and also of the history of Python. (I'm not enamored of the whitespace indentation, either, but there were justifications [reasons?], and if you use tabs for the leading whitespace and spaces internally, then it's not that bad, but merely takes a bit of dicipline.)
The real problem with both Python and Ruby is the lack of decent ways of documenting code. That's one thing that Java got right. Ruby tried, but it's default mechanism isn't much better than markup. (YARD is a better alternative.) With Python, fortunately you can use Doxygen. That's not an ideal solution, but it works. Epydoc was much better, but it doesn't understand inheritance in Python3.
Note that this is a difficult problem that every language needs to come to grips with. C/C++ were fortunate in that they didn't have much competition, so lots of people wrote tools for documenting them. Post Java things are a lot tougher. It would be nice if there were some standard documentation system for all languages, but in order to work it would need to be so flexible that it would be too clumsy to use. Good documentation tools need to understand the language, and know about things like inheritance, private, and whether modification of a parameter within the routine can cause changes outside. So I think that every language is going to continue to need to come to grips with it individually.
N.B.: I'm talking about creating documentation for programmers, not users. That requires a totally different approach, and is best handled by tools like LibreWriter.
P.S.: Python's decision to make Sphinx the official documentation tool for the language is one of the most boneheaded things that has been done during the entire development of the language.
But I don't have a clear idea of what it looked like.
I think this is probably common in twitter posts, as the short nature of the post encourages considerable ambiguity and lack of precision. OTOH, it seems a clear indication that she's unqualified as a PR executive.
That wasn't exactly a denial. I.e., they didn't deny what they did, they denied doing it maliciously. They didn't deny doing it because of incomptetnce. They didn't deny doing it because of placing trust in people they should have doubted. They didn't deny ...
They issued a statement that it is essentially impossible to prove false, no matter WHAT evidence turns up. And that makes it meaninless.
You didn't understand he answer. The postulated problem with the eliptic code is NOT the algorithm. It is being presumed that the algorithm is properly implemented. It's with the data chosen to initialize the routine. And nobody has been able to show whether that's a weak selection of initializers or not...but the hypothesis is that the NSA caused the RSA to select those particular initializers BECAUSE they are weak. It could equally be because they were strong. We don't know.
Having access to the code would not solve this problem. (There are other problems that it would solve. E.g., we are trusting that the implementation was accurate. But that's not where suspicion has been focused.)