Plain text messages using circumlocution and indirection to cover up what they were really talking about. Shocking that they'd use inherently unguessable encoding to avoid the dubious security theatre of encryption.
100% secure encryption has been possible for hundreds of years
... Just. Large enough sets of random-enough data to be useful have only really been available since statistics started to become a useful field in the early 19th century. The cryptographic use of one-time pads was first described in 1882 (though they may have been used previously, but quietly). Slightly thin ice there, I wouldn't take up tap-dancing.
What? Security organisations are meant to be up-to-date with things? Who'd have thought it?
They've even told Apple that they can do it in-house so there's no chance the method will be used on anyone else's phone.
And is there anyone on the planet who isn't already in a lunatic asylum who believes that the tool would never get out of the FBI's labs.
First FBI "hacker" who suspects his boy-/ girl-/ trans-friend of porking / being porked by someone else, the tool will be out of the labs and down the road.
TFA claims that "one in three payments made in London are contact-less" ; I can only think that they get that number by counting every use of the "Oyster" card on the underground and buses. (I don't live in London and avoid the place if at all possible, but I don't think that there is any other use for this card.
One of my banks sent me a contactless card last year. But that's OK, because that account I only ever use for online purchases, and the card never leaves the living room. I'm not even sure how you'd actually perform a contactless payment. And I don't feel any particular reason to learn.
The Holocaust or Shoah which the Israelis (some of whom are Jews, but there are also non-Jewish Israelis) are perpetrating upon the Palestinians (some of whom are Muslims, but there are also non-Muslim Palestinians). There's also a historical reference, but that's an active Holocaust at the moment.
If we are going to discuss storing data for extended periods of time then I'd think that the data should be in a form that is human readable with some very basic equipment.
For what definitions of "basic equipment"?
FTFA,
The self-assembled nanostructures change the way light travels through glass, modifying polarisation of light that can then be read by combination of optical microscope and a polariser,
Well, I've got a microscope that can do the polarisation work. But not to 5 microns resolution. That's a capability that probably wasn't available optically until this side of World War 2.
Read and write rates were my big question too. And they're not addressed.
Well it is still in use. We still have - sorry, had, I was made redundant a couple of days ago - customers using our software with parallel port dongles (in the security device sense, not the "electronics on a cable sense").
Where they get desktops with a parallel port on, I neither know nor care. someone else's problem.
But really... how long until it turns into designer babies?
The answer is probably a negative number - if you count the date of fertilisation, or starting the preparation of the fertilised egg.
Very likely labs in less regulated countries have already started trying to do this. whether they're working for locals, of for westerners who are desperate for $REASON$, and think that their $REASON$ is more important than the grounds for not doing it (yet) of multiple countries worth of health and genetics experts.
There will be failures - some of them literal monsters which die in utero, some of them with less obvious failings which make it to birth, or to toddlerhood, or adolescence. We can only hope that we manage to learn something from these errors.
I would propose a 50% remission in jail time for using unregulated gene-editing organisation on a human foetus, if ALL the lab records and tissues are surrendered to the authorities. "Cooperate, and you might see sunlight again."
How on earth can you drive away from home with a straight cam, have something that happens to the vehicle which bends the cam, and NOT have a pile of wreckage which needs a truck to tow it home?
That's by no means an exhaustive list of the isotopes produced. In a typical waste batch there would be several dozens of isotopes when the "rods" (or other forms) go into the reactor (even oxygen will provide 3) by the time it comes out, there will be several hundred isotopes which have been directly produced. Every one of them will have been subject to fairly intense bombardment by neutrons and alpha particles, generating probably several hundred others.
5.1 IMPORTANT ISOTOPES IN SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL SAFETY ANALYSES (p) 31
5.2 (next section) (p)35"
Actually, my guesstimate of "hundreds" above is reduced on that table to a mere 41. Of course, a different authority would probably choose a different group that are "important" but "dozens" certainly seems a good starting estimate.
If you store the used rods in a reactor pool for ~30 years, then in an above ground cask for another 30-60, as you say, the radioactivity is a tiny fraction of what it used to be.
Between a half and a quarter, depending on the mix of isotopes in your "waste". Which is not a tiny fraction. The caesium has a half life of 30 years (so decays to a quarter ; 137 isotope) ; the strontium (1/4, 28 years), barium (1/64, 10 years), iodine (negligible, 60 days), xenon (negligible, 30 days).
While I agree that reprocessing waste is potentially a valuable source of dangerous materials, it is not as simple as sloganeering. And it will create additional wastes of its own (which you can't just distil back to dryness - many of the short-lived and dangerous isotopes are gases or low boiling point.
the stuff that we call "spent fuel" still has 99% of the original energy locked inside.
Where the fuck did you get that figure from? Did you make it up, or did you copy it from someone who made it up?
For a start - the 300,000 m^3 volume given means that they're talking about intermediate- and high- grade wastes, not high-grade alone.
But even if it were high grade waste, the available energy is about 1/10th of the binding energy per nucleon. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for an example ; you need to go from low energy/nucleon to high energy per nucleon to release energy per nucleon.) The only way you could get to 99% still available would be to achieve total conversion of mass to energy. Do you have a technique for that, because if you do, there are fleets of black helicopters from competing groups heading your way, and they are going to ask you questions you will answer. Repeatedly.
Slashdot Mirror
Try this link for the de-paywalled version. (Off to RTFP now.)
Plain text messages using circumlocution and indirection to cover up what they were really talking about. Shocking that they'd use inherently unguessable encoding to avoid the dubious security theatre of encryption.
... Just. Large enough sets of random-enough data to be useful have only really been available since statistics started to become a useful field in the early 19th century. The cryptographic use of one-time pads was first described in 1882 (though they may have been used previously, but quietly). Slightly thin ice there, I wouldn't take up tap-dancing.
What? Security organisations are meant to be up-to-date with things? Who'd have thought it?
And is there anyone on the planet who isn't already in a lunatic asylum who believes that the tool would never get out of the FBI's labs.
First FBI "hacker" who suspects his boy-/ girl-/ trans-friend of porking / being porked by someone else, the tool will be out of the labs and down the road.
I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean what you think it means.
One of my banks sent me a contactless card last year. But that's OK, because that account I only ever use for online purchases, and the card never leaves the living room. I'm not even sure how you'd actually perform a contactless payment. And I don't feel any particular reason to learn.
Can I get a smoke of that, cobber? That's some good gear you're smoking.
Where the absolute fuck did you get that particular piece of complete bullshit from?
The Holocaust or Shoah which the Israelis (some of whom are Jews, but there are also non-Jewish Israelis) are perpetrating upon the Palestinians (some of whom are Muslims, but there are also non-Muslim Palestinians). There's also a historical reference, but that's an active Holocaust at the moment.
They were FORUMS, not "chat rooms".
What do you have to wonder about them? They're making a profit, aren't they? And that is their job.
For what definitions of "basic equipment"?
FTFA,
Well, I've got a microscope that can do the polarisation work. But not to 5 microns resolution. That's a capability that probably wasn't available optically until this side of World War 2.
Read and write rates were my big question too. And they're not addressed.
HWÃT: WE GAR-DENA IN GEARDAGUM theodcyninga thrym gefrunon. Hu tha æthelingas ellen fremedon ! Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena threatum monegum mægþum meodosetla ofteah, egsode eorl, sythan ærest wearth feasceaft funden. He thæs frofre gebad, weox under wolcnum, weorthmyndum þah, oth thæt him æghwylc thara ymbsittendra ofer hronrade hyran scolde, gomban gyldan. Thæt wæs god cyning. Thæm eafera wæs æfter cenned, geong in geardum, thone God sende folce to frofre. Fyrenthearfe ongeat.
What do you mean, you don't understand it? It's only a millennium old, and it's English.
Where they get desktops with a parallel port on, I neither know nor care. someone else's problem.
No, it's below specification. The permissible range is 253 to 216V.
Unless you live in North America or on one side of Japan (I forget which side).
The answer is probably a negative number - if you count the date of fertilisation, or starting the preparation of the fertilised egg.
Very likely labs in less regulated countries have already started trying to do this. whether they're working for locals, of for westerners who are desperate for $REASON$, and think that their $REASON$ is more important than the grounds for not doing it (yet) of multiple countries worth of health and genetics experts.
There will be failures - some of them literal monsters which die in utero, some of them with less obvious failings which make it to birth, or to toddlerhood, or adolescence. We can only hope that we manage to learn something from these errors.
I would propose a 50% remission in jail time for using unregulated gene-editing organisation on a human foetus, if ALL the lab records and tissues are surrendered to the authorities. "Cooperate, and you might see sunlight again."
Hmmm, not having a garden, I'd never paid those more than the most cursory amount of attention. Now ... that might be an interesting little project.
How on earth can you drive away from home with a straight cam, have something that happens to the vehicle which bends the cam, and NOT have a pile of wreckage which needs a truck to tow it home?
Isn't that one of the purposes of the firewall between engine bay and human compartment?
There, that was difficult, wasn't it?
Tough shit.
What gives you the right to make your kid my problem?
What is "Office Space"?
That doesn't mean what you think it means.
Ah, here's what I was looking for. From a US review of spent fuel, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/..., a section entitled
5.1 IMPORTANT ISOTOPES IN SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL SAFETY ANALYSES (p) 31 5.2 (next section) (p)35"
Actually, my guesstimate of "hundreds" above is reduced on that table to a mere 41. Of course, a different authority would probably choose a different group that are "important" but "dozens" certainly seems a good starting estimate.
I found a second source, https://www.oecd-nea.org/scien... which has a similar list of 31 nucleides.
Between a half and a quarter, depending on the mix of isotopes in your "waste". Which is not a tiny fraction. The caesium has a half life of 30 years (so decays to a quarter ; 137 isotope) ; the strontium (1/4, 28 years), barium (1/64, 10 years), iodine (negligible, 60 days), xenon (negligible, 30 days).
While I agree that reprocessing waste is potentially a valuable source of dangerous materials, it is not as simple as sloganeering. And it will create additional wastes of its own (which you can't just distil back to dryness - many of the short-lived and dangerous isotopes are gases or low boiling point.
Where the fuck did you get that figure from? Did you make it up, or did you copy it from someone who made it up?
For a start - the 300,000 m^3 volume given means that they're talking about intermediate- and high- grade wastes, not high-grade alone.
But even if it were high grade waste, the available energy is about 1/10th of the binding energy per nucleon. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for an example ; you need to go from low energy/nucleon to high energy per nucleon to release energy per nucleon.) The only way you could get to 99% still available would be to achieve total conversion of mass to energy. Do you have a technique for that, because if you do, there are fleets of black helicopters from competing groups heading your way, and they are going to ask you questions you will answer. Repeatedly.