Because then an attacker could then XOR two arbitrary encrypted blocks and thus cancel out the OTP entirely, being left with the XOR of the two plaintext messages, facilitating plain text attacks.
Never ever use a OTP twice, that's why it is called an ONE TIME pad!
It might have been some average distances on a random walk (for instance as a model for futural prices or interests). If you wait a time t, then the expected distance from your starting point in a Brownian random walk is ~sqrt(t). And if you look into the past, you might get imaginary expected distances:)
Because that would mean more confusion in the end, and it would encourage the nextSCO to pull the same stunt: Sue a company with big pockets on claims without merit und wait for the company to reward you with buyout money.
I know of an anecdote where the surveillance camera actually helped solving a crime, where a business got robbed. But in this case it wasn't the camera alone, it was the fact that there was a watchman actively watching the camera feed. The neighbouring hardware store was robbed on a Sunday morning, and our datacenter watchman was pointing the surveillance camera to the scene and informing the police. He even got the license plate of the van used by the robbers on camera. About 90 mins later the police had caught hold of the van, including the loot and at least three of the criminals.
So CCTV might actually help solving crimes, but it takes much more than just having it automatically scan the environment. But then -- compared with how many people are actually running around on crowded places, and how many singular events are actually happening there, about 99.9% of them are not criminal at all. This begs the question if the surveillance effort will ever pay out because most of it is wasted anyway. Unmonitored CCTV is just an attempt to get surveillance on the cheap, and the Garbage In -- Garbage Out effect is manifesting here again.
In my hometown (actually I live in a small village directly at the border of said town, but for the sake of simplicity call it my hometown), the parking enforcement goes twice along the parking lots: The first time they note all the licence plates of cars without a valid parking ticket, and the second time (it's 10 mins inbetween) they fill out the parking violation ticket.
Note that this town has, except for some outer regions, only "managed parking lots", so there is no free parking zone anyway exept on private property off the roads.
The main problem is that no one really knows what "female" and "male" roles are for humans, except for the purely procreative functions of producing eggs, sperms, getting pregnant and breastfeeding the offspring. Any other roles that might have existed are sunk between culturally and cognitively defined roles, and those are subject to cultural and congnitive changes. And those roles are not inherent in our genomics, but a plastic response to the environment we are living in. Simple example: Popular opinion likes to attribute an interest in many and often changing sexual partners to male, and less so to female humans. But mathematics tell us, that, if the ratio between males and females in a population is m/f, then the average male has f/m times the number of heterosexual partners of the average female - independent of any personal or sexual traits. If there are more females than males (like after a big war) in a population, males are necessarily more promiscuitive than females. Then even if they are 100 percent faithfull and average 1.0 heterosexual (female) partner per male, it means that some of the females don't get a male partner at all, putting their average below 1.0. If in a population the ratio between males and females is close to 1/1, then the average male has about the same number of female sexual partners than the average female has male sexual partners. I know there are statistics based on interviews, which claim otherwise, but obviously they are in fact statistics about how well the average male or female lies about his or her sexual activity - a purely cognitive issue.
You can claim copyright over a derivative work (meaning no one is allowed to use your work without your agreement), but you still have to ask the creator of the original work to be able to do something sensible with your derivative one.
Yes and no. You don't recalculate the statics of the laboratory you are working in. You don't test the paper you are writing on for hidden chemicals that might change your writings etc.pp.
But you have to meticiously list all things directly involved with your experiment that you didn't test. So if you didn't test the ferromagnetism of an instrument you were using, but the outcome of your experiment can be influenced by ferromagnetism, you have at least to mention it. The quoted essay from Richard Feynman actually shows what you might have to test to make your experiment valid:
[...] For example, there have been many experiments running rats through all kinds of mazes, and so on--with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before.
The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell.
He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell.
Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat is really using--not what you think it's using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running.
I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The next experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn't discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of cargo cult science.
My dad had that opinion. Never flew his whole life because he couldn't believe that something weighing tonnes could fly. Now I always thought that was a bit silly because he could see planes flying. But clearly he like you wouldn't trust in them unless he saw the test data from the trials of each individual model of aircraft.
That not exactly "not trusting science". That's just paranoia. Not trusting science means to perform the experiments for yourself and not to take the paper as disclosed truth. If for instance someone does a long algebraic transformation to get to a result, then "trusting science" means "accept the transformation as true". "Not trusting science" means to perform the transformation for yourself and look if you get the same result. (I remember an old anecdote where a guy in a thesis wrote: "as it can be easily proved, from A follows B." The reviewer was not convinced and tried to prove B from A and failed, so he got back to the author. The author then showed him the textbook where it was mentioned, that it was easy to prove B from A. They finally ended up with the author of the textbook who then pulled out his doctoral thesis, whose topic actually was to prove B from A.)
As every conspiracy hypothesis, it is not. Because evidence that the hypothesis might be wrong is in fact evidence that someone is trying to cover his tracks.
If you ever understood why Richard Stallman takes exactly the stance he takes, you would never make so a silly statement.
Richard Stallman saw his own code he wrote for his own projects incorporated in a commercial product and got forbidden to ever reuse or publish his own code. And thus because the company in question had a license in place that basicly made all changes and extension to the code base the property of the company.
So Richard Stallman sought a way to make such a code grap impossible by design - by inventing a license that removes all your rights to all the code you were given the moment you try to shield it from other people.
So when Richard Stallman says that the GPL-type licenses are here not only to open source, but to keep the software actually free, then he has a point.
If you because of your limited experience don't see the point, it's not Richard Stallman's fault.
After 40 years, patents are expired anyway, so no one except someone with an interest in historically correct attribution of an invention will ever try to overturn a 40 year old patent.
It's not that easy. The US FED is the only legitimate source of USD. So whenever someone needs USD to buy crude oil, he has somehow to get USD, and that means that he either takes a loan with the US FED, or he tries to sell something to someone, who has already USD, which means, that in the end he has to do business with the U.S. directly or indirectly. Because the US FED has a monopoly of the USD, it is the only institution that can directly manipulate the price of the USD. So no, the price of the USD is not that of a commodity.
I am not the fool who put him in prison. I just explained why he was there. There are means to prove that you are unable to pay a sum put down in a court order, they are called insolvency (which is latin, means 'not fluent' and is the legal version of declaring you are unable to pay). He didn't do that. So the assumption that he could have paid if he wanted to is sound.
Slashdot Mirror
Because then an attacker could then XOR two arbitrary encrypted blocks and thus cancel out the OTP entirely, being left with the XOR of the two plaintext messages, facilitating plain text attacks.
Never ever use a OTP twice, that's why it is called an ONE TIME pad!
It might have been some average distances on a random walk (for instance as a model for futural prices or interests). If you wait a time t, then the expected distance from your starting point in a Brownian random walk is ~sqrt(t). And if you look into the past, you might get imaginary expected distances :)
Sometimes you just don't want to know what has beaten/bitten you.
So basicly it's the StarTrek solution (as we all saw in "Wrath of Khan"): Modify the game if you can't beat it with the current rules.
You can still game the system: Open many parallel connections.
... which the previous poster so eloquently ironized. Or did you in fact assume that the Linux Kernel has a RANDOMLY_DISCHARGE_BATTERY flag?
Because that would mean more confusion in the end, and it would encourage the nextSCO to pull the same stunt: Sue a company with big pockets on claims without merit und wait for the company to reward you with buyout money.
I know of an anecdote where the surveillance camera actually helped solving a crime, where a business got robbed. But in this case it wasn't the camera alone, it was the fact that there was a watchman actively watching the camera feed.
The neighbouring hardware store was robbed on a Sunday morning, and our datacenter watchman was pointing the surveillance camera to the scene and informing the police. He even got the license plate of the van used by the robbers on camera. About 90 mins later the police had caught hold of the van, including the loot and at least three of the criminals.
So CCTV might actually help solving crimes, but it takes much more than just having it automatically scan the environment. But then -- compared with how many people are actually running around on crowded places, and how many singular events are actually happening there, about 99.9% of them are not criminal at all. This begs the question if the surveillance effort will ever pay out because most of it is wasted anyway. Unmonitored CCTV is just an attempt to get surveillance on the cheap, and the Garbage In -- Garbage Out effect is manifesting here again.
In my hometown (actually I live in a small village directly at the border of said town, but for the sake of simplicity call it my hometown), the parking enforcement goes twice along the parking lots: The first time they note all the licence plates of cars without a valid parking ticket, and the second time (it's 10 mins inbetween) they fill out the parking violation ticket.
Note that this town has, except for some outer regions, only "managed parking lots", so there is no free parking zone anyway exept on private property off the roads.
This is incompatible with current legal practices ;)
The main problem is that no one really knows what "female" and "male" roles are for humans, except for the purely procreative functions of producing eggs, sperms, getting pregnant and breastfeeding the offspring.
Any other roles that might have existed are sunk between culturally and cognitively defined roles, and those are subject to cultural and congnitive changes. And those roles are not inherent in our genomics, but a plastic response to the environment we are living in.
Simple example: Popular opinion likes to attribute an interest in many and often changing sexual partners to male, and less so to female humans. But mathematics tell us, that, if the ratio between males and females in a population is m/f, then the average male has f/m times the number of heterosexual partners of the average female - independent of any personal or sexual traits. If there are more females than males (like after a big war) in a population, males are necessarily more promiscuitive than females. Then even if they are 100 percent faithfull and average 1.0 heterosexual (female) partner per male, it means that some of the females don't get a male partner at all, putting their average below 1.0. If in a population the ratio between males and females is close to 1/1, then the average male has about the same number of female sexual partners than the average female has male sexual partners. I know there are statistics based on interviews, which claim otherwise, but obviously they are in fact statistics about how well the average male or female lies about his or her sexual activity - a purely cognitive issue.
None of them, because neither sperm nor eggs where produced by the petri-dish.
Persons who have the chromosome configuration XYXX tend to develop female genitals, even though they have an Y. So what are they?
Words and terms can't be copyrighted, they get trademarked.
And yes, there can be the situation where one party owns the copyright to a work, and another one owns the trademark (think UNIX).
You can claim copyright over a derivative work (meaning no one is allowed to use your work without your agreement), but you still have to ask the creator of the original work to be able to do something sensible with your derivative one.
No, because the evil conspiracists have meddled with the results and covered their tracks.
Yes and no. You don't recalculate the statics of the laboratory you are working in. You don't test the paper you are writing on for hidden chemicals that might change your writings etc.pp.
But you have to meticiously list all things directly involved with your experiment that you didn't test. So if you didn't test the ferromagnetism of an instrument you were using, but the outcome of your experiment can be influenced by ferromagnetism, you have at least to mention it. The quoted essay from Richard Feynman actually shows what you might have to test to make your experiment valid:
[...] For example, there have been many experiments running rats through all
kinds of mazes, and so on--with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the door where the food had been the time before.
The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the corridor, and still the rats could tell.
He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions, the rats could tell.
Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat is really using--not what you think it's using. And that is the experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with rat-running.
I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The next experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young. They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn't discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of cargo cult science.
My dad had that opinion. Never flew his whole life because he couldn't believe that something weighing tonnes could fly. Now I always thought that was a bit silly because he could see planes flying. But clearly he like you wouldn't trust in them unless he saw the test data from the trials of each individual model of aircraft.
That not exactly "not trusting science". That's just paranoia. Not trusting science means to perform the experiments for yourself and not to take the paper as disclosed truth.
If for instance someone does a long algebraic transformation to get to a result, then "trusting science" means "accept the transformation as true". "Not trusting science" means to perform the transformation for yourself and look if you get the same result.
(I remember an old anecdote where a guy in a thesis wrote: "as it can be easily proved, from A follows B." The reviewer was not convinced and tried to prove B from A and failed, so he got back to the author. The author then showed him the textbook where it was mentioned, that it was easy to prove B from A. They finally ended up with the author of the textbook who then pulled out his doctoral thesis, whose topic actually was to prove B from A.)
As every conspiracy hypothesis, it is not. Because evidence that the hypothesis might be wrong is in fact evidence that someone is trying to cover his tracks.
Hey, but going sledge riding in the Alps with some of the women from DERI was nice though.
That's the backlash-dot you get if you comment against the groupthink.
If you ever understood why Richard Stallman takes exactly the stance he takes, you would never make so a silly statement.
Richard Stallman saw his own code he wrote for his own projects incorporated in a commercial product and got forbidden to ever reuse or publish his own code. And thus because the company in question had a license in place that basicly made all changes and extension to the code base the property of the company.
So Richard Stallman sought a way to make such a code grap impossible by design - by inventing a license that removes all your rights to all the code you were given the moment you try to shield it from other people.
So when Richard Stallman says that the GPL-type licenses are here not only to open source, but to keep the software actually free, then he has a point.
If you because of your limited experience don't see the point, it's not Richard Stallman's fault.
After 40 years, patents are expired anyway, so no one except someone with an interest in historically correct attribution of an invention will ever try to overturn a 40 year old patent.
It's not that easy. The US FED is the only legitimate source of USD. So whenever someone needs USD to buy crude oil, he has somehow to get USD, and that means that he either takes a loan with the US FED, or he tries to sell something to someone, who has already USD, which means, that in the end he has to do business with the U.S. directly or indirectly.
Because the US FED has a monopoly of the USD, it is the only institution that can directly manipulate the price of the USD. So no, the price of the USD is not that of a commodity.
I am not the fool who put him in prison. I just explained why he was there. There are means to prove that you are unable to pay a sum put down in a court order, they are called insolvency (which is latin, means 'not fluent' and is the legal version of declaring you are unable to pay). He didn't do that. So the assumption that he could have paid if he wanted to is sound.