Heck, I avg about 55mph on most city streets...when I bother to look at the speedometer.
Try that here and you'd be replacing your shock absorbers... and probably much of the rest of your suspension... several times daily.
Much though I hate, loathe and detest "sleeping policemen", I do agree that they are effective at keeping the speed of traffic down towards the child-friendly range, and so are entirely appropriate for roads which are not major transit routes. There are 11 sleeping policemen between my home and the main road system if I take one route to get there, and 12 the other way (which is shorter). I tolerate them because my neighbours (non-drivers, almost exclusively) are concerned about their children or aged parents being hit by cars.
But then again, perhaps I'm making a fundamental error by distinguishing between "drivers" and "the population". We all know that animals only become legally human when they get their driving license, and that only temporarily, while they're in their vehicles.
There was an interesting article somewhere suggesting that the best way to do this in terms of minimizing mining and water waste was to crush the ore,
Hmmm, that, by definition, is going to generate large volumes of dust...
It would then be economically feasible to haul that much smaller volume of rock to the a large, perhaps one off facility, that purified the material and dealt with the large amount of tainted water, dust and heavy metals that the refinery process entailed.
And then more dust in a different place.
Don't get me wrong - this can be a feasible process. In fact, it is quite common for this sort of separation and pre-concentration to be done. But it's not cheap, either in terms of energy (crushing rock takes power) or environmental consequences. The "gangue" (geologist and miner's term for the bits of rock quarried which are not your target mineral) is very likely to contain significant amounts of heavy metals itself. Even in the absence of heavy metals (or light metalloids such as antimony and arsenic), the fine grain size of powdered rock and the consequent high surface area makes them relatively reactive, which can be a bad thing. Also, in consequence of the fine grain size, the gangue typically has very low permeability (plenty of porosity, but low permeability ; most people get those two properties confused), which makes them very poor components of soils. So... if you want them to go away and cease to be a problem, you've got to dig a hole deep enough and voluminous enough to accommodate your mine's waste products before you get started on your ore processing. That's a big up-front cost, which established mines can, to a degree, dodge by back-filling worked out parts of the mine. This isn't without problems - tailings are not generally structurally sound materials. But that can be engineered around. At a price.
I spent most of the last couple of months working on a small testing operation in a 2nd-to-3rd world country. The environmental regulations and stuff we had to go through to "dispose" of a few hundred cubic metres of rock cuttings and a similar quantity of processing water... Oh, what a mound! Not (mostly) my problem, but it was a really time consuming part of the evaluation process. Approaching a hundred truckloads, moved 50+km to an acceptable landfill site on dirt roads. Just one more problem.
There's a substantial gold deposit on the west coast of Scotland which would be an ideal site for processing like this - low population density area ; reasonable grades of ore ; decent associated other minerals (copper-zinc) ; close to the sea, with good deep-water anchorages. A smelter (in Sweden) has been pencilled in to take the processed ore (it already smelts similar ore, has a deep-water harbour...). Everything is lined up, except for how to handle the tailings. That trips up the EIA, every time.
I did my thesis mapping nearby ; as a geologist, I'd be fascinated by what we could discover in the process of taking this ore out ; as a mountaineer who has been walking those mountains for most of my life, the bulldozers and explosives would go in over my dead body - and quite a few other dead bodies too - unless that tailings issue is credibly dealt with.
("Oh ; think of the jobs!" is the next line of argument. A mine there might employ 30 to 50 people ; the tourist industry in the area employs, directly or indirectly, thousands. So the next line is "We ARE thinking of the jobs - that a mine would lose!")
Well by 2014 we're supposed to have pretty much all American troops out of Afghanistan.
And the relevance of American troop numbers to the largely Chinese corporations who are surveying and intending to exploit the mineral resources of Afghanistan is... what?
It (Title 8 of the US Code 1185) also only applies only to citizens of the US (a category with only two members in the group of people that I know and care about) and only to the United States itself, not to anywhere important (to me). I also see that it doesn't specify what (if any) travel documents non-US citizens need. (The original claim was that "The right to travel, the right to leave any country, and the right to return to your own country", not about the peculiarities of one particular nation.)
Going back to the case of my British friends rebuilding a boat in Texas then... if they decided to take their boat on a trip to Hawaii, the long way round (I believe that is one of their actual intentions, spread over several years), then since they are planning on going from US territory to US territory... then they don't need any more documentation than if they were sailing from Texas to Florida. (Hmmm, complications, because that Cornell article makes assertions about the parts of Panama that include the Canal ; but I thought that Panama had regained it's independence after the Noriega debacle? Plus the complications of the South American capitalists who supply America's demand for escapism drugs and the attempts to control that. Now I'm wondering what happens with the non-US, non-anywhere mess that is Guantanamo Bay, but that place is just bizarre.)
(1) So, you've no actual evidence that the US has actually accepted the UDHR into it's legislation, otherwise you'd be able to point to the actual legislation. Given the proven skills of politicians at extending the definition of "hypocrisy", I apply negative weight to "condemning [of] violations" as evidence of actual support.
(2) So... an "honour system" for border security. What is that phrase Bruce Scheiner uses? "Security Theatre."
(1) I thought the US didn't believe in "International Law". Whatever.
(2) There is a border guard at every possible point of departure? Odd. I'm pretty sure that my colleague who is repairing a boat in Houston made no mention of any border guards. Then again, she's not American, and travels on at least two passports (necessary in the industry), which may simplify matters. Or complicate them.
Not having a passport never has prevented you from leaving any particular country. A passport is only a request from one government to another to assist you, a person under the protection of the first government, in your travels. It is sometimes used as an indication of nationality, but that isn't necessarily the case.
Without your passport, you're completely free to leave the United States. But without that request from the US Govt to $OTHER_GOVT$, there is no reason whatsoever for them to assist you in your travels, for example by allowing you to enter their jurisdiction.
The right to travel, the right to leave any country, and the right to return to your own country are fundamental human rights defined by the UDHR.
That may or may not be the case. But is it relevant on either of two grounds:
Has the USA ratified or accepted into it's legislative base the UDHR?
Is the USA denying you the right to travel?
There is a long way between "denying the right" and "actively assisting" ; a passport is active assistance. As long as the US border authorities are willing to let it's citizens back into the country, then they're not in violation of the UDHR policy you propose. Sure, it's easier with a passport, but it's got to be possible without a passport.
In the reductio ad absurdium case, a US citizen is on a plane that lands at a US airport, crashes and burns ; the citizen is "walking wounded", but in the fire has lost all his belongings, clothes and even the government's passport. (The passport is their property, remember). Does the border guard have policies for letting such a distressed traveller back in? Of course they do - though it may be more finicky than just showing a passport.
Now move the problem back a little - the "distressed traveller" had their wallet/ passport pickpocketed at the airport, so arrive back home without a passport? What to do. Again, there will be a procedure, because it does happen ("Oh shit I left my briefcase on the plane.... which is taking off again!")
It is possible to travel without a passport. It's not necessarily illegal, or easy, but it is possible.
To do the process right, you test the cement job when it is done, and if it doesn't pass, you seal the well and start over.
Generally, when a below-requirement cement job is detected (normally by performing "functional" tests such as the Leak-Off Test or Formation Integrity Test between drilling phases), additional cement will be pumped into the sub-standard areas before continuing with the well. Similarly, if I mis-cut some woodwork while decorating my house, I don't burn the building to the ground and start digging new foundations, but I repair the problem until has adequate strength to do the job required of it.
Come, visit us in the US. [because] The police are allowed to lie to you.
Errr, no thanks.
No, seriously, why should I expose myself to such a dangerous legal system? Is there something of benefit to be had in America that would outweigh the sorts of hazards of personal freedom that America represents?
(Been away for a while... catching up. And why the fuck is Slashdot no longer recognising my automatic login preference?)
apparently some vaccines are made with eggs, and contain egg proteins. Anyone who's allergic to eggs and egg proteins would most likely be allergic to that vaccine, right?
There are a lot of proteins in eggs, many of which are also present in people. Some are allergenic to some people. which is grounds for discussing with your healthcare practitioner which particular formulation of which vaccine would be most suitable or least unsuitable. That doesn't - in most versions of English that I've met - amount to a refusal to be vaccinated, though it may delay matters by a couple of hours to weeks while appropriate choices are made. If you were getting your child fitted with a pacemaker, you'd probably do some shopping around too, without having rejected the idea outright.
Since when did choice have anything to do with what country people lived in?
Since people had individual freedom to move between countries.
I don't know of many countries where just anyone can go move there.
Well, probably not just anyone. But anyone with valuable skills can pretty much choose where they live. I've been trying to persuade the wife to look at any of three different continents to move to (after all, she's already moved from her continent of origin), but she has this silly idea that it's important for me to live within a few thousand kilometers of my employer's offices. Which is frankly silly, as I was saying last week to that Stockport lass who was working with me near Mtwara, while her husband worked on re-fitting their boat in Houston before they moved across the Carribean.
I'll bet (this is a joke!) that you even expect to die and be buried in the same country that you were born? No, sorry, that's just being silly. Who'd do that?
When those clients of yours who refuse your advice go around maiming and killing your other clients, who may not per capita earn you as much money, but considerably outnumber your advice-refusing client.
How would you know if you're allergic to a vaccine without taking it?
You take the vaccine ; you discover that you're allergic to that vaccine ; you're now vaccinated and aware of being allergic to the vaccine. So, how do you fit into the category of "unvaccinated"?
Now, you may have issues with booster vaccinations. Which is something that you can discuss with your practitioner during the years before the booster becomes due.
You may be suffering a reaction to a component of the vaccine, but not the vaccine itself. Again, this is something that you can discuss with your practitioner, as there are normally several different vaccines available for a particular disease. (Whether you have to pay extra if you live in one of those third-world countries without a proper socialised health care system, is of course your problem if you choose to remain in such barbaric conditions.)
The whooping cough vaccine wears off after about 20 years, as I learned when I was 26 and came down with it.
Hmmm, I didn't know that. And as someone who can remember suffering whooping cough as a toddler, I really don't want to go through that again. I've got permanent hearing damage and a moderately badly damaged voice box too.
Ah, the Tetanus-Diptheria-Pertussis booster covers it. OK, that's good ; I get them at frequent intervals. Which reminds me, my Yellow Fever is due to expire in the not too distant future, so I'd better get the old booklet out and check all of them. And while I think of it - it's anti-malarial time, too.
In this case, what we take to be very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies,
or of other galaxies near to the apparent position of the originally-considered galaxy, but at a considerably different age.
formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe."
. . . multiple times. And there is nothing fundamental to prevent us (our galaxy) from being the source of the gravitational lensing that allows us to see the distant galaxies.
If the observable universe is (say) 4 times the diameter of the actual universe (for universes of positive curvature), then looking in one direction, you'd see direct light from a galaxy in that direction , and nearby a gravitationally-lensed image of the same galaxy at 3 times the age and distance ; when you deconvolve the structure of the lensing mass, it looks suspiciously similar to our galaxy's map.
Oh, hang on, that only works for the specific case where the distant galaxy is half-way around the universe from us ; the general solution would be more complex.
And of course, on this sort of time-scale, the galaxies move significant distances as well as things moving internally. It's the old Sphinx puzzle - would you recognise a toddler, a middle-aged man and a wobbly senile wreck as being the same organism?
How can you call a movie from 1982 a classic? That's only 30 years ago.
"Classic" refers to the quality of a movie, not it's age. For example, though I was under-impressed with it, I recognised that "Star Wars" was probably a classic movie within minutes of seeing it 30-odd years ago (35?). I gather that it's been popular since, and there are even rumours of a sequel in the works.
Get off my lawn!
Is that a reference to a classic movie from around 10 years ago? I believe that it is rumoured to have starred Clinty-poos, though I'm not entirely sure as I haven't seen it. "Gross Tourist-o", or something like that?
The assertion made by TrueCrypt is that it is impossible to determine if a file has a TrueCrypt volume on it, or merely has random data in the file (file = device for this purpose). Consequently it is also impossible to determine if the free space in a TrueCrypt volume has zero data, a hidden partition, or deleted naughty files in it. Any properly developed encryption system should have these properties. The presence of files (devices, whatever) with large chunks of statistically random data on it may be a clear indicator that encryption has been used, but not whether there are multiple levels of encryption applied within the file.
[The point in your second reply].
If you've not managed your system so that logfiles don't exist, that isn't the problem of the "hidden volume" system ; that's a problem with you and your management of your computer. If you're on someone else's system, and they generate log files that you don't control, then that's your fault for using an insecure (from your PoV) system for doing things that you consider should be encrypted.
Or the file gets taken to the spooks and cracked (and yes, this has happened).
Citation?
Note : I'm reading what your saying as "the files containing visible and hidden TrueCrypt (or something else) volumes AND ONLY THOSE FILES AND NOTHING ELSE WHATSOEVER" have been cracked by the spooks and the results described in public in formal court proceedings".
I wouldn't be surprised if people had the presence of hidden volumes proved by (for example, log files, keyloggers, shoulder surfing by an under-cover officer, whatever. Tempest, for example? Which is a different class of penetration to actually breaking the "hidden volume" encryption system.)
That claim is in flat-out contradiction to the claims that TrueCrypt developers (and others) make for their system(s), so I'd expect there to have been considerable discussion of the cases you're going to cite.
This wouldn't fly in the UK (under Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA)).
You forgot? Tough.
You used some honey-pot ruse like this? Tough.
Either you give the key/passphrase to decrypt the file when requested or go to jail. End of discussion.
... which is precisely why TrueCrypt (and probably other encryption systems) has the ability to have hidden encryption on volumes : the "plausible deniability" defence.
"OK, so you, Mr Legal System have spent lots of time and effort dragging me, Mr Innocent J. Hacker, through the court system to make me decrypt the device... and I see the redneck sherrif has got a $5 receipt from AToolCo and a copy of Piers Anthony's "On the Uses of Torture" on his desk. So I guess this is a Galileo moment, and those are the instruments. The passphrases for the files you're interested in are..." And you go on to describe a plausible passphrase generating scheme.
The files are decrypted. There may be some interesting stuff in there - say some confidential documents from your last job, which you shouldn't really have - but nothing criminal to justify the large WOMBAT that the Law enforcement have just indulged in.
Now... the Law are back at square one. Either they accept that you don't really have any naughty files, or they get out the $5 wrench and book a CIA flight to...
Well we wouldn't have predicted that, would we? It's not as if sub-contracted radiation workers haven't been circumventing their dosimeters for decades now. In fact, pretty much since the introduction of the dosimeter.
It is an effective tool for alleviating corporate legal responsibility. Which means that it keeps on getting re-invented.
Slashdot Mirror
Try that here and you'd be replacing your shock absorbers ... and probably much of the rest of your suspension ... several times daily.
Much though I hate, loathe and detest "sleeping policemen", I do agree that they are effective at keeping the speed of traffic down towards the child-friendly range, and so are entirely appropriate for roads which are not major transit routes. There are 11 sleeping policemen between my home and the main road system if I take one route to get there, and 12 the other way (which is shorter). I tolerate them because my neighbours (non-drivers, almost exclusively) are concerned about their children or aged parents being hit by cars.
But then again, perhaps I'm making a fundamental error by distinguishing between "drivers" and "the population". We all know that animals only become legally human when they get their driving license, and that only temporarily, while they're in their vehicles.
ISTR the woman in question was a Geordie.
R + R Packaging 4, Ballast Hill, Blyth , Northumberland , NE24 2AU Tel: 01670 546666 Packaging Materials & Services ; All Types Of Packaging ; Plastic, Polystyrene, Film ; Polythene, Paper Bags, Sacks ; Hygiene & Catering Technology ; Industrial Packaging ; Cardboard & Printed Packaging
That didn't take long. Where are my ear plugs?
Hmmm, that, by definition, is going to generate large volumes of dust ...
And then more dust in a different place.
Don't get me wrong - this can be a feasible process. In fact, it is quite common for this sort of separation and pre-concentration to be done. But it's not cheap, either in terms of energy (crushing rock takes power) or environmental consequences. The "gangue" (geologist and miner's term for the bits of rock quarried which are not your target mineral) is very likely to contain significant amounts of heavy metals itself. Even in the absence of heavy metals (or light metalloids such as antimony and arsenic), the fine grain size of powdered rock and the consequent high surface area makes them relatively reactive, which can be a bad thing. Also, in consequence of the fine grain size, the gangue typically has very low permeability (plenty of porosity, but low permeability ; most people get those two properties confused), which makes them very poor components of soils. So ... if you want them to go away and cease to be a problem, you've got to dig a hole deep enough and voluminous enough to accommodate your mine's waste products before you get started on your ore processing. That's a big up-front cost, which established mines can, to a degree, dodge by back-filling worked out parts of the mine. This isn't without problems - tailings are not generally structurally sound materials. But that can be engineered around. At a price.
I spent most of the last couple of months working on a small testing operation in a 2nd-to-3rd world country. The environmental regulations and stuff we had to go through to "dispose" of a few hundred cubic metres of rock cuttings and a similar quantity of processing water ... Oh, what a mound! Not (mostly) my problem, but it was a really time consuming part of the evaluation process. Approaching a hundred truckloads, moved 50+km to an acceptable landfill site on dirt roads. Just one more problem.
There's a substantial gold deposit on the west coast of Scotland which would be an ideal site for processing like this - low population density area ; reasonable grades of ore ; decent associated other minerals (copper-zinc) ; close to the sea, with good deep-water anchorages. A smelter (in Sweden) has been pencilled in to take the processed ore (it already smelts similar ore, has a deep-water harbour ...). Everything is lined up, except for how to handle the tailings. That trips up the EIA, every time.
I did my thesis mapping nearby ; as a geologist, I'd be fascinated by what we could discover in the process of taking this ore out ; as a mountaineer who has been walking those mountains for most of my life, the bulldozers and explosives would go in over my dead body - and quite a few other dead bodies too - unless that tailings issue is credibly dealt with.
("Oh ; think of the jobs!" is the next line of argument. A mine there might employ 30 to 50 people ; the tourist industry in the area employs, directly or indirectly, thousands. So the next line is "We ARE thinking of the jobs - that a mine would lose!")
And the relevance of American troop numbers to the largely Chinese corporations who are surveying and intending to exploit the mineral resources of Afghanistan is ... what?
Going back to the case of my British friends rebuilding a boat in Texas then ... if they decided to take their boat on a trip to Hawaii, the long way round (I believe that is one of their actual intentions, spread over several years), then since they are planning on going from US territory to US territory ... then they don't need any more documentation than if they were sailing from Texas to Florida. (Hmmm, complications, because that Cornell article makes assertions about the parts of Panama that include the Canal ; but I thought that Panama had regained it's independence after the Noriega debacle? Plus the complications of the South American capitalists who supply America's demand for escapism drugs and the attempts to control that. Now I'm wondering what happens with the non-US, non-anywhere mess that is Guantanamo Bay, but that place is just bizarre.)
So, it's a set of guidelines, not an absolute prescription.
(1) So, you've no actual evidence that the US has actually accepted the UDHR into it's legislation, otherwise you'd be able to point to the actual legislation. Given the proven skills of politicians at extending the definition of "hypocrisy", I apply negative weight to "condemning [of] violations" as evidence of actual support. (2) So ... an "honour system" for border security. What is that phrase Bruce Scheiner uses? "Security Theatre."
(2) There is a border guard at every possible point of departure? Odd. I'm pretty sure that my colleague who is repairing a boat in Houston made no mention of any border guards. Then again, she's not American, and travels on at least two passports (necessary in the industry), which may simplify matters. Or complicate them.
Without your passport, you're completely free to leave the United States. But without that request from the US Govt to $OTHER_GOVT$, there is no reason whatsoever for them to assist you in your travels, for example by allowing you to enter their jurisdiction.
That may or may not be the case. But is it relevant on either of two grounds:
There is a long way between "denying the right" and "actively assisting" ; a passport is active assistance. As long as the US border authorities are willing to let it's citizens back into the country, then they're not in violation of the UDHR policy you propose. Sure, it's easier with a passport, but it's got to be possible without a passport.
In the reductio ad absurdium case, a US citizen is on a plane that lands at a US airport, crashes and burns ; the citizen is "walking wounded", but in the fire has lost all his belongings, clothes and even the government's passport. (The passport is their property, remember). Does the border guard have policies for letting such a distressed traveller back in? Of course they do - though it may be more finicky than just showing a passport.
Now move the problem back a little - the "distressed traveller" had their wallet/ passport pickpocketed at the airport, so arrive back home without a passport? What to do. Again, there will be a procedure, because it does happen ("Oh shit I left my briefcase on the plane .... which is taking off again!")
It is possible to travel without a passport. It's not necessarily illegal, or easy, but it is possible.
Feel free to only do theoretical switching on of the lights and only theoretically stop shivering.
Generally, when a below-requirement cement job is detected (normally by performing "functional" tests such as the Leak-Off Test or Formation Integrity Test between drilling phases), additional cement will be pumped into the sub-standard areas before continuing with the well. Similarly, if I mis-cut some woodwork while decorating my house, I don't burn the building to the ground and start digging new foundations, but I repair the problem until has adequate strength to do the job required of it.
In a fair game of blackjack, it is possible for a skillful player to retain their money, or even to win for a short period.
You don't think that the people who manage the stock market would allow a situation like that to exist, do you?
Errr, no thanks.
No, seriously, why should I expose myself to such a dangerous legal system? Is there something of benefit to be had in America that would outweigh the sorts of hazards of personal freedom that America represents?
I love the Bible for
The content as a story of
is a bit on the ... implausible side.
But what the hell - some hotel rooms still have them, and they're effective shit paper.
apparently some vaccines are made with eggs, and contain egg proteins. Anyone who's allergic to eggs and egg proteins would most likely be allergic to that vaccine, right?
There are a lot of proteins in eggs, many of which are also present in people. Some are allergenic to some people. which is grounds for discussing with your healthcare practitioner which particular formulation of which vaccine would be most suitable or least unsuitable. That doesn't - in most versions of English that I've met - amount to a refusal to be vaccinated, though it may delay matters by a couple of hours to weeks while appropriate choices are made. If you were getting your child fitted with a pacemaker, you'd probably do some shopping around too, without having rejected the idea outright.
Since when did choice have anything to do with what country people lived in?
Since people had individual freedom to move between countries.
I don't know of many countries where just anyone can go move there.
Well, probably not just anyone. But anyone with valuable skills can pretty much choose where they live. I've been trying to persuade the wife to look at any of three different continents to move to (after all, she's already moved from her continent of origin), but she has this silly idea that it's important for me to live within a few thousand kilometers of my employer's offices. Which is frankly silly, as I was saying last week to that Stockport lass who was working with me near Mtwara, while her husband worked on re-fitting their boat in Houston before they moved across the Carribean.
I'll bet (this is a joke!) that you even expect to die and be buried in the same country that you were born? No, sorry, that's just being silly. Who'd do that?
When those clients of yours who refuse your advice go around maiming and killing your other clients, who may not per capita earn you as much money, but considerably outnumber your advice-refusing client.
You take the vaccine ; you discover that you're allergic to that vaccine ; you're now vaccinated and aware of being allergic to the vaccine. So, how do you fit into the category of "unvaccinated"?
Now, you may have issues with booster vaccinations. Which is something that you can discuss with your practitioner during the years before the booster becomes due.
You may be suffering a reaction to a component of the vaccine, but not the vaccine itself. Again, this is something that you can discuss with your practitioner, as there are normally several different vaccines available for a particular disease. (Whether you have to pay extra if you live in one of those third-world countries without a proper socialised health care system, is of course your problem if you choose to remain in such barbaric conditions.)
Thief.
Hmmm, I didn't know that. And as someone who can remember suffering whooping cough as a toddler, I really don't want to go through that again. I've got permanent hearing damage and a moderately badly damaged voice box too.
Ah, the Tetanus-Diptheria-Pertussis booster covers it. OK, that's good ; I get them at frequent intervals. Which reminds me, my Yellow Fever is due to expire in the not too distant future, so I'd better get the old booklet out and check all of them. And while I think of it - it's anti-malarial time, too.
or of other galaxies near to the apparent position of the originally-considered galaxy, but at a considerably different age.
. . . multiple times. And there is nothing fundamental to prevent us (our galaxy) from being the source of the gravitational lensing that allows us to see the distant galaxies.
If the observable universe is (say) 4 times the diameter of the actual universe (for universes of positive curvature), then looking in one direction, you'd see direct light from a galaxy in that direction , and nearby a gravitationally-lensed image of the same galaxy at 3 times the age and distance ; when you deconvolve the structure of the lensing mass, it looks suspiciously similar to our galaxy's map.
Oh, hang on, that only works for the specific case where the distant galaxy is half-way around the universe from us ; the general solution would be more complex.
And of course, on this sort of time-scale, the galaxies move significant distances as well as things moving internally. It's the old Sphinx puzzle - would you recognise a toddler, a middle-aged man and a wobbly senile wreck as being the same organism?
"Classic" refers to the quality of a movie, not it's age. For example, though I was under-impressed with it, I recognised that "Star Wars" was probably a classic movie within minutes of seeing it 30-odd years ago (35?). I gather that it's been popular since, and there are even rumours of a sequel in the works.
Is that a reference to a classic movie from around 10 years ago? I believe that it is rumoured to have starred Clinty-poos, though I'm not entirely sure as I haven't seen it. "Gross Tourist-o", or something like that?
The assertion made by TrueCrypt is that it is impossible to determine if a file has a TrueCrypt volume on it, or merely has random data in the file (file = device for this purpose). Consequently it is also impossible to determine if the free space in a TrueCrypt volume has zero data, a hidden partition, or deleted naughty files in it. Any properly developed encryption system should have these properties. The presence of files (devices, whatever) with large chunks of statistically random data on it may be a clear indicator that encryption has been used, but not whether there are multiple levels of encryption applied within the file.
[The point in your second reply].
If you've not managed your system so that logfiles don't exist, that isn't the problem of the "hidden volume" system ; that's a problem with you and your management of your computer. If you're on someone else's system, and they generate log files that you don't control, then that's your fault for using an insecure (from your PoV) system for doing things that you consider should be encrypted.
Citation?
Note : I'm reading what your saying as "the files containing visible and hidden TrueCrypt (or something else) volumes AND ONLY THOSE FILES AND NOTHING ELSE WHATSOEVER" have been cracked by the spooks and the results described in public in formal court proceedings".
I wouldn't be surprised if people had the presence of hidden volumes proved by (for example, log files, keyloggers, shoulder surfing by an under-cover officer, whatever. Tempest, for example? Which is a different class of penetration to actually breaking the "hidden volume" encryption system.)
That claim is in flat-out contradiction to the claims that TrueCrypt developers (and others) make for their system(s), so I'd expect there to have been considerable discussion of the cases you're going to cite.
... which is precisely why TrueCrypt (and probably other encryption systems) has the ability to have hidden encryption on volumes : the "plausible deniability" defence.
"OK, so you, Mr Legal System have spent lots of time and effort dragging me, Mr Innocent J. Hacker, through the court system to make me decrypt the device ... and I see the redneck sherrif has got a $5 receipt from AToolCo and a copy of Piers Anthony's "On the Uses of Torture" on his desk. So I guess this is a Galileo moment, and those are the instruments. The passphrases for the files you're interested in are ..." And you go on to describe a plausible passphrase generating scheme.
The files are decrypted. There may be some interesting stuff in there - say some confidential documents from your last job, which you shouldn't really have - but nothing criminal to justify the large WOMBAT that the Law enforcement have just indulged in.
Now ... the Law are back at square one. Either they accept that you don't really have any naughty files, or they get out the $5 wrench and book a CIA flight to ...
Where do the CIA render people to now?
It is an effective tool for alleviating corporate legal responsibility. Which means that it keeps on getting re-invented.
Nyet, she's Deutsch.
I read that as "the Abbess gauzes into you", and shuddered. Not, it should be said, in anticipation. Or hope.
Huh? Oh, I see. "confused" and "conjecture".
Time to go and swat a church.