If it's random, you don't really need to encrypt it. You might, however, need to compress it, and then alter it enough so that they can't be sure that you used, say, bzip2 to compress it.
Better, just xor together a few bzip files. 7 should be plenty., but make sure they're fairly long, and truncate the length of the result to the length of the shortest. It's not random. There's clearly pattern present. But there's no way to recover the information.
Who will know why they died? I don't consider fallout very likely, unless there are failed attacks against rather paranoid people who are also powerful. Even then I'd rate it as low probability.
And that's the *reason* only young people are desired. You didn't argue against my point at all. Older people are required to be *increasingly* skilled if they are to be accepted. The exact amount varies by country, and also by various other criteria (e.g., how many relatives you have there).
The time to leave was actually 8-12 years ago. Perhaps a bit more. But when you check you will find that your reccomendation to "young" people was correctly addressed. If you are much over 28 it becomes progressively harder to immigrate to a desireable country. The world is overpopulated, so no country needs extra bodies, they only need skilled individuals that won't end up costing too much in social services.
But the reads need to (transparently) access the write buffer, so you get the current data rather than a stale version. Otherwise you can't guarantee consistency. (I.e., you may write one value, and then read back a previous value.)
So separate buffers won't work, unless you don't care about consistency.
My fault. You are right, that was a patent. But it shouldn't have been. And Apple not only claimed it, but enforced it. So Apple isn't being a good guy. Which was the point.
I can't actually claim that Apple is a patent troll, as they actually do make hardware. But their legal actions are frequently indistinguishable from those of a troll. They aren't predicatably good guys. OTOH, they aren't always in the wrong either. Recently, however, that seems the way to bet.
"Encryption doesn't help as much as it's proponents claim." is a true statement. And just how much it helps depends greatly on the use case. But saying it doesn't help at all is as wrong as claiming that it's the perfect answer.
IIUC, the GP was saying that the US created Al Queda. I'm not asserting the truth of that statement, but I do believe that's what the GP was asserting.
Sorry, but the Soviets didn't invent that trick. If anything they copied it from the Nazis, but then the Nazis didn't originate it either. Perhaps they copied it from the Inquisition, or from any of many other prior "practitioners of the art". It's so old that one can't even say how old it is. It *probably* didn't predate language.
You mean like "round corners" on a box is a perfectly reasonable copyright?
Sorry, but I *don't* believe that Apple is usually right. Sometimes it is, but often, especially recently, it's a ligitigous (vile characterization), suing over patents that should never have been granted.
Nah. The GP's point was that if he didn't like the first version, he shouldn't have bought the second. Reasonable, if they guy isn't a reviewer. If his job is a reviewer then it's not such a reasonable comment.
FWIW, most of his points are quite good, and not even controversial. There are many things that the free market is lousy at fixing. (Yes, I know that there is not now, and never has been, a really free market, but that's beside the point.) In particular, companies have adapted to reviewers of products by only having a particular model on the market for a short period of time. E.g., the last time I went to look for a printer I couldn't find a single model that had been reviewed as "works well with Linux" still on the market. Similar printers with different model numbers were available. (FWIW, the printer I got works well with Linux, though it has many dislikeable features that a review would have warned about. E.g., if you aren't printing in draft mode, it will only print on white paper.)
So his general points are valid, and not specific to phones. (IS his list spam? I don't know, but his point about end users not knowing it was blocked is valid.)
No, what you are doing is coercing the government into investing in AI, in an incremental sort of way. AI as an "evolutionary arms race".
(Actually, they've probably aleady passed the point where your approach would work. But they'll still need to look at it carefully so that the counter-AI doesn't slip messages into something they've decided is irrelevant.)
FWIW, I'm rather certain that this particular arms race is already well advanced. Unfortunately. I'm much rather that a working AI evolved out of a hospital management system, but the progress along that front is looking much slower.
It's important to realize that nobody understands the large computer systems that run things. Different people understand different parts of them, but the interactions between the parts are frequently surprising. Usually these interactions are bugs...but that's the nature of evolution. (Note that evolution is an abstract process, and DNA is only one concrete instantiation of the abstract class.)
I disagree. When those who are not actively corrupt act to shield those who ARE actively corrupt, then they are also corrupt. So police that don't arrest officers that commit felonies are corrupt, even though they, themselves, are only passive observers. And management that tolerates such actions is corrupt, and, itself, criminal (misfeasance, at a minimum, but probably actually felonious...and if not, it SHOULD be felonious).
Police and others who are given extra authority should be held to a more ridgid standard than are others. And they should be punished when they do not live up to that standard. (I suspect that nearly half the police in this city should be in prison, mainly for aiding and abeting after the fact, but as they are in a position of power that should be grounds for imprisonment.)
N.B.: IANAL. I suspect that if I were I could name specific grounds for prosecution of those that I say "should be imprisoned". IOW, I doubt that any new laws are required, merely enforcement of laws already on the books.
Sorry, but THIS isn't evidence that Islam isn't peaceful. I would agree with you that it isn't, anymore than is any other "missionary religion", and a bit less so than some. But THIS isn't evidence of that. Now if you were arguing that they were intolerant bigots, you would have a point, but that's a separate, though correlated, matter.
Sorry, but given a "plurality rules" voting system, that won't work. If a majority of votes were required, that would be a defensible tactic. This is why I favor either Condorcet voting or IRV (Instant Runoff Voting.).
I will agree that there is no perfect way of counting votes, but plurality rules is worse than most of the options. In fact I would consider it significanlty worse than slection by lottery.
You're ignoring a few factors. One of them is that oil from the Middle East is purchased in dollars. My suspicion is that this is the real reason behind the invasion of Iran...that they were planning to sell oil in Euros. No evidence, but it's the most plausible explanation that I've ever heard for that atrocity.
Any evidence that that was due to Chinese government action? There's lots of unethical corporate spying going on... And not just Chinese, probably not mainly Chinese.
Sailing ships could spread SOME agricultural pests, but many died en transit. Many more than with steam ships and airplanes. And cars, and trains, and...
The key here is rapid. Just what *is* rapid depends on the hardiness of the pest in adverse environments. But if it's really hardy, and you don't live on an island, it's been there all along (excluding direct actions by humans...see passenger pidgeon).
Monoculture is important. (In an earlier post I made this very point.) But almost equally important is rapid transportation. This allows infective organisms to spread world-wide VERY quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's random, you don't really need to encrypt it. You might, however, need to compress it, and then alter it enough so that they can't be sure that you used, say, bzip2 to compress it.
Better, just xor together a few bzip files. 7 should be plenty., but make sure they're fairly long, and truncate the length of the result to the length of the shortest. It's not random. There's clearly pattern present. But there's no way to recover the information.
He hasn't been worse.
"If I have appeared worse than prior presidents, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."
Who will know why they died? I don't consider fallout very likely, unless there are failed attacks against rather paranoid people who are also powerful. Even then I'd rate it as low probability.
While the need to be "remotely" accessible, there's no good reason for "remotely" to be any further away than 6 inches. Probably less.
You are assuming the CIO knows infromation rather than (or in addition to) management. That is sometimes a correct assumption.
And that's the *reason* only young people are desired. You didn't argue against my point at all. Older people are required to be *increasingly* skilled if they are to be accepted. The exact amount varies by country, and also by various other criteria (e.g., how many relatives you have there).
The time to leave was actually 8-12 years ago. Perhaps a bit more. But when you check you will find that your reccomendation to "young" people was correctly addressed. If you are much over 28 it becomes progressively harder to immigrate to a desireable country. The world is overpopulated, so no country needs extra bodies, they only need skilled individuals that won't end up costing too much in social services.
But the reads need to (transparently) access the write buffer, so you get the current data rather than a stale version. Otherwise you can't guarantee consistency. (I.e., you may write one value, and then read back a previous value.)
So separate buffers won't work, unless you don't care about consistency.
My fault. You are right, that was a patent. But it shouldn't have been. And Apple not only claimed it, but enforced it. So Apple isn't being a good guy. Which was the point.
I can't actually claim that Apple is a patent troll, as they actually do make hardware. But their legal actions are frequently indistinguishable from those of a troll. They aren't predicatably good guys. OTOH, they aren't always in the wrong either. Recently, however, that seems the way to bet.
Sorry, but like most extremes, you are wrong.
"Encryption doesn't help as much as it's proponents claim." is a true statement. And just how much it helps depends greatly on the use case. But saying it doesn't help at all is as wrong as claiming that it's the perfect answer.
IIUC, the GP was saying that the US created Al Queda. I'm not asserting the truth of that statement, but I do believe that's what the GP was asserting.
Sorry, but the Soviets didn't invent that trick. If anything they copied it from the Nazis, but then the Nazis didn't originate it either. Perhaps they copied it from the Inquisition, or from any of many other prior "practitioners of the art". It's so old that one can't even say how old it is. It *probably* didn't predate language.
The amazing thing is that it still works.
You mean like "round corners" on a box is a perfectly reasonable copyright?
Sorry, but I *don't* believe that Apple is usually right. Sometimes it is, but often, especially recently, it's a ligitigous (vile characterization), suing over patents that should never have been granted.
Point. *I* don't feel it's an adequate point, but he may.
Nah. The GP's point was that if he didn't like the first version, he shouldn't have bought the second. Reasonable, if they guy isn't a reviewer. If his job is a reviewer then it's not such a reasonable comment.
FWIW, most of his points are quite good, and not even controversial. There are many things that the free market is lousy at fixing. (Yes, I know that there is not now, and never has been, a really free market, but that's beside the point.) In particular, companies have adapted to reviewers of products by only having a particular model on the market for a short period of time. E.g., the last time I went to look for a printer I couldn't find a single model that had been reviewed as "works well with Linux" still on the market. Similar printers with different model numbers were available. (FWIW, the printer I got works well with Linux, though it has many dislikeable features that a review would have warned about. E.g., if you aren't printing in draft mode, it will only print on white paper.)
So his general points are valid, and not specific to phones. (IS his list spam? I don't know, but his point about end users not knowing it was blocked is valid.)
Well, there was a zombie apocalypse alert in the US last year. (I think it was last year.) And it was official.
OTOH, nobody is prepared for and invasion by Dr. Doom. Or for the Hulk to lose his temper. Or Godzilla.
No, what you are doing is coercing the government into investing in AI, in an incremental sort of way. AI as an "evolutionary arms race".
(Actually, they've probably aleady passed the point where your approach would work. But they'll still need to look at it carefully so that the counter-AI doesn't slip messages into something they've decided is irrelevant.)
FWIW, I'm rather certain that this particular arms race is already well advanced. Unfortunately. I'm much rather that a working AI evolved out of a hospital management system, but the progress along that front is looking much slower.
It's important to realize that nobody understands the large computer systems that run things. Different people understand different parts of them, but the interactions between the parts are frequently surprising. Usually these interactions are bugs...but that's the nature of evolution. (Note that evolution is an abstract process, and DNA is only one concrete instantiation of the abstract class.)
I disagree. When those who are not actively corrupt act to shield those who ARE actively corrupt, then they are also corrupt. So police that don't arrest officers that commit felonies are corrupt, even though they, themselves, are only passive observers. And management that tolerates such actions is corrupt, and, itself, criminal (misfeasance, at a minimum, but probably actually felonious...and if not, it SHOULD be felonious).
Police and others who are given extra authority should be held to a more ridgid standard than are others. And they should be punished when they do not live up to that standard. (I suspect that nearly half the police in this city should be in prison, mainly for aiding and abeting after the fact, but as they are in a position of power that should be grounds for imprisonment.)
N.B.: IANAL. I suspect that if I were I could name specific grounds for prosecution of those that I say "should be imprisoned". IOW, I doubt that any new laws are required, merely enforcement of laws already on the books.
Sorry, but THIS isn't evidence that Islam isn't peaceful. I would agree with you that it isn't, anymore than is any other "missionary religion", and a bit less so than some. But THIS isn't evidence of that. Now if you were arguing that they were intolerant bigots, you would have a point, but that's a separate, though correlated, matter.
Sorry, but given a "plurality rules" voting system, that won't work. If a majority of votes were required, that would be a defensible tactic. This is why I favor either Condorcet voting or IRV (Instant Runoff Voting.).
I will agree that there is no perfect way of counting votes, but plurality rules is worse than most of the options. In fact I would consider it significanlty worse than slection by lottery.
You're ignoring a few factors. One of them is that oil from the Middle East is purchased in dollars. My suspicion is that this is the real reason behind the invasion of Iran...that they were planning to sell oil in Euros. No evidence, but it's the most plausible explanation that I've ever heard for that atrocity.
Any evidence that that was due to Chinese government action? There's lots of unethical corporate spying going on... And not just Chinese, probably not mainly Chinese.
Is the US involvement in the MSWind backdoor confirmed? I thought it had be "plausibly denied". (I may doubt their denial, but that's not proof.)
Sailing ships could spread SOME agricultural pests, but many died en transit. Many more than with steam ships and airplanes. And cars, and trains, and...
The key here is rapid. Just what *is* rapid depends on the hardiness of the pest in adverse environments. But if it's really hardy, and you don't live on an island, it's been there all along (excluding direct actions by humans...see passenger pidgeon).
Monoculture is important. (In an earlier post I made this very point.) But almost equally important is rapid transportation. This allows infective organisms to spread world-wide VERY quickly.