TL;DR version: The Clintons did keep gifts given to them while in office, some of which were furniture, and some of which turned out to be gifts given to "The White House". They had to return or pay for these gifts because while the gifts they received personally were theirs to keep, the gifts given to the White House were not. They settled the accounts by paying for some of the gifts and giving others to the National Park Service (who manages the White House).
Of course you probably believe the other, much bigger lies, about the Clintons, which Snopes has also debunked, so I'm sure you'll dismiss all their research as a coverup by a partisan web site.
I should mention that I don't like the Clintons. Not their politics or policies, not as people (from what I can see; I've never met them). And I never voted for either of them, nor would I. I just prefer facts to conspiracy theories.
Yes. Heating the cabin uses battery power, which reduces range. In the worst case by as much as 10%, though more often it's around 5%. The exact number depends on the details of course -- the amount of energy used to heat the cabin depends on the outside temperature, the thermostat setting and the amount of time you're driving, which depends on the speed. Normally BEVs have better range in slower traffic, but slower means longer.
It's usually a good idea to turn on the seat warmers and heated steering wheel and then set the cabin temperature a little lower than you normally would, allowing the direct-conduction heat to keep you warm because it's more efficient than heating the cabin air.
Do you get lower range in the summer when you have to run the air conditioning?
No. Well, I suppose a little, but it's so little that you really don't notice it. It turns out that the amount of electricity needed to keep the cabin cool is fairly small, even on very hot days. This seems odd, because running the AC in an ICEV does affect fuel consumption noticeably. I have two theories about why we see this difference. The first is that it's related to ICE inefficiency, that to generate X Joules of energy to run the AC compressor, you must burn 3X Joules worth of additional fuel, so the energy/fuel impact of the same amount of cooling in a BEV is 1/3rd. The second is that ICEV AC units must work harder because in addition to having to remove heat that comes in from the exterior, they also have to remove heat that comes from the engine. I suspect it's mostly the first, with a little help from the second.
Yes, because waiting for the car to preheat isn't always an option.
How long do you think it will take to heat? Remember, this isn't an ICEV. Those are warmed with waste heat from the engine and give you nothing until you've burned enough fuel to heat that large hunk of metal. EVs don't have significant waste heat, which means their heaters use heating elements or heat pumps -- which means they start blowing hot air within seconds, and the cabin temperature rises to very comfortable levels long before an ICEV's heater would start blowing noticeably-warm air.
My Nissan LEAF goes from sub-zero to reasonably-comfortable in two or three minutes. That plus the heated steering wheel means that the first thing I do when I get into the car on a cold winter day is take my gloves off, even without pre-heating. I know I won't need them.
Yeah, but there's a good chance they'll cause the next one.
Oh I've got to hear this story. How exactly do you figure the big tech companies are going to throw the world into recession requiring massive bailouts and forcing people out of their homes? Be specific on the causal mechanism.
Microsoft
You should look up the definitions of "specific", "causal" and "mechanism".
Assuming Randall Munroe did his research well (and he generally does), it shows that humans represent a significant portion of all land mammals by mass, and that humans plus our domestic animals constitute nearly all land mammal mass. Wild mammals represent a tiny percentage.
Of course the tooltip reminds us that bacteria still outweigh us by thousands to one, so there's still work to be done.
If a cipher is vulnerable to a known plaintext attack, it's utterly broken and unusable. This is how cryptographers see it, and for very good reasons.
And c) All algorithms are vulnerable to known plaintext attacks - even one-time-pads (which are the only provably secure crypto).
The sort of vulnerability we're discussing here is recovery of the key from some number of known plaintext/ciphertext pairs. Yes, any block cipher is "vulnerable" in the sense that given sufficient computing capacity and known plaintext and paired ciphertext exceeding the unicity distance, the key can be recovered. But cryptographers don't consider this a vulnerability unless the amount of computing capacity required is significantly less than brute force search of the key space.
Given sufficiently-fast quantum computers Grover's Algorithm does enable the recovery of 128-bit AES keys in significantly less time than would be required for a brute force search of the key space. Whether sufficiently-fast quantum computers will ever exist is unknown. Similarly, it's unknown whether quantum algorithms better than Grover's will be devices for attacking AES.
As for one-time pads, assuming the keystream satisfies the requirements of a one-time pad, it is not possible to recover a different part of the keystream from observations of arbitrarily-large amounts of known plaintext and corresponding. Obviously you can recover the part of the keystream used for encrypting the known plaintext, but that does you no good since it will never be reused.
Really, in order to be considered any good, a block cipher plus chaining mode must satisfy IND-CCA2 (and therefore also IND-CCA1 and IND-CPA). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... if you're not familiar with these standard cryptographic security models.
Not the worst of it. Apparently the article linked and Slashdot (who took the time to find the source) both missed out on this being about sea slugs, not snails.
How does the precise species of the test subjects affect interpretation of the results?
Quantum-computers attacking conventional encryption works like this:
- you "build a circuit" that performs the same encryption that was used (e.g. AES, ECC, etc.)... As such, QC defeats traditional encryption entirely.
This is incorrect. Shor's algorithm promises one-step breaks of asymmetric algorithms (RSA, ECC), but it does not work on symmetric ciphers like AES or (as you correctly say) hash functions. However, Grover's algorithm, does work on symmetric ciphers and hash functions. Not as well; given an N-bit search space, Grover's algorithm requires sqrt(N) steps. Still that puts AES-128 at risk of sufficiently large and efficient quantum computers. AES-256 is pretty safe, though, barring some other quantum algorithm that is more effective.
To be clearer: Quantum computers break things based on number factoring, eg. certificate signing.
It doesn't break block ciphers like AES.
It might break blockchain, yes, but, like, who cares?
Quantum computing does weaken both symmetric ciphers like AES and hashing algorithms which are the basis of blockchains (though many blockchains also make use of asymmetric digital signatures which are more deeply affected). Specifically, Grover's Algorith is a quantum algorithm that can find the input that provides a given output for any algorithm with at most sqrt(N) applications of the algorithm. This means that with sufficiently-good quantum computers, you can find a 128-bit AES key for a known plaintext/ciphertest pair in 2^64 steps, which just might be feasible. Similarly, given a 160-bit hash, like SHA-1, you can find a pre-image for a given hash value in 2^80 steps.
Of course, if you use AES-256, Gover's algorithm will find you an answer in 2^128th steps, which is almost certainly forever out of reach Similarly for SHA-2 256. This assumes that Grover's algorithm is the best way to attack these sorts of primitives with a quantum computer, of course. We may discover other approaches that are less general, but better.
it depends on your location. In rural areas USPS seems to be faster while the commercial will take longer bouncing to hubs. Then being placed on the truck for a night.
I live in a rural area. Here UPS is far better, hands down.
As a heavy user of Amazon, I really, really hope that a USPS rate hike convinces Amazon to stop using them. My package delivery has gotten much slower and less reliable since they started using USPS rather than UPS. I'd love to see them go back to using UPS and FedEx exclusively.
Maybe the ecahhhhnamy needs to be restructured so it can function even without continuous growth, sprawl, and environmental depredation.
It's not the economy that's the problem, it's our approach to aging and retirement. Because the working population supports the retirees, we need to maintain the ratio of workers to retirees above one, preferably well above.
If we can stave this problem off for two or three decades, I think automation will solve it. Or, rather, automation will produce a different problem, where we need very few workers. Total production will be massively higher (and can continue growing unboundedly) so we'll have plenty, we'll just need to distribute it differently.
You mean support about the fact that education level of later generations has been rising in all developed countries? Your national statistics bureau should have numbers about that.
My question would be WTF this article is doing on slashdot?
It used to be that slashdotters were interested in and enjoyed talking about the impact of technology. Not so much anymore.
That's to be expected. Ten years ago, this would have been a little bit mind blowing. Now, most of us reference Youtube to hang a door or change our brakes, so the conclusion of the article is already intuitive.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean we recognize the breadth and depth of the impact. Hanging a door is, or at least seems to be, a completely different kind of thing from being an NBA basketball player. It's not so obvious that YouTube videos can cut years off the time it takes to develop a top-tier basketball player, which is what we are seeing.
I am cognizant that almost every generation thinks that the next generation is a bunch of lazy whiners who should get off their butt and do something useful. This makes me want to question my analysis. But even when I question it, I still come to the same conclusions.
The environment is different for millennials that it was for your generation. You told your parent could not help you, which means you had the opportunity to surpass their wealth and education levels.. Millennials have the opposite perspective: at best they can expect to maintain their parent's level.
Right, but this article is about temporarily pausing history WHILE you are logged into your account.
If you're using a browser and you open an incognito browser window then you're not logged into your account. Not unless you go through the process of logging in from the incognito window, and why would you do that?
Millennials just give back the consideration they get from their employers. Companies treat human resource as a fungible asset at best, or as an undesirable cost at worst. No surprise employees are not loyal to their employer in such an environment.
OTOH, employers are pulling their hair out, trying to figure out how to get millenials to actually work. More than one business owner I know actually looks for older employees because they know from experience that for every ten millenials they hire, seven of them will end up having to be let go because they can't show up on time, or don't do their work. And half of those seven will do so little and leave so quickly that the net return from employing them, after overhead and training costs, will be negative.
I'm not an employer, and I haven't noticed this about my millennial co-workers. But my employer tries very hard to hire only high-achievers, so it's not a representative sample.
As much as I've tried to instill a better work ethic in my own kids, I see it in them as well. One thing I would never have done when I was their age was to quit a job I didn't like until I'd found another one, but all three of my kids who are out of high school have quit jobs in a huff and then been unemployed for a while because they weren't happy with the job offers they got. I definitely quit jobs I didn't like, but not until I had something else. Luckily for them, in the current record-low unemployment economy they do have lots of options. I'd like to think that they're comfortable with walking out of a job and being picky about their next one because they know that employers are desperate, but I don't actually think they make that calculation. When I asked them about their rationale, they never once said "Well, I knew it would be easy to get another job", in fact they complained about how hard it was.
I'm to blame to some degree, I suppose, because they know that I can and will help them out if they need it. When I was their age, I knew that my parents could not help me out financially, though I don't think it would have occurred to me to ask even if they could.
I am cognizant that almost every generation thinks that the next generation is a bunch of lazy whiners who should get off their butt and do something useful. This makes me want to question my analysis. But even when I question it, I still come to the same conclusions.
I think the Millennial generation just values different things, and in many ways I think that's great. I'll be much happier when they can value different things and reliably provide for themselves.
real wages and the middle class have been in decline ever since
Median real income per capita has risen 51% since 1979. https://www.economist.com/grap.... Household wages have declined, but households have shrunk and government transfers have increased.
So you have 2-3 per day that have to sit there until you can address them. If the delay until you can averages, say, five days, that means that you have 10-15 in your inbox all the time? I suppose if you can always deal with them by the end of the day it's not too bad. I usually can't.
Once you're already at Inbox Zero, you can generally manage, in the immediate, whatever email comes through.
Otherwise, in the case of the ~1% of emails which I cannot immediately deal with, they sit in my inbox until I can. If there's an unread email in my inbox it means it is of high importance and I need to keep looking at it until it's resolved.
For me this is true for personal email, but not work, where I get hundreds of new messages per day, so the 1% I can't deal with immediately mean that I have several per day that have to sit there... pretty quickly this means I'm very far from inbox zero. Or would be. Google Inbox's ability to "snooze" threads until a future date or location is the only thing that makes it possible. I'm surprised that more MUAs haven't picked up this extremely valuable feature.
I like to ask my right wing friends/acquaintances if healthcare is a right or not try to make them answer yes or no. After 5-10 minutes of speeches and hemming and hawing they'll either say 'no' or admit we ought to have a national healthcare system.
Your right wing friends are really that unable to express their own views? You should get some better right wing friends... oh, but then they might be able to successfully challenge your views, so I can see why you avoid them.
FWIW, no healthcare is not a "right". Positive rights are a very, very bad idea. Education is also not a "right".
OTOH, it's probably better for society to provide free education, and free basic healthcare. Not because they're rights but because providing them solves a lot of problems.
Slashdot Mirror
No but she did steal furniture twice on her way out of office.
Mostly false. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...
TL;DR version: The Clintons did keep gifts given to them while in office, some of which were furniture, and some of which turned out to be gifts given to "The White House". They had to return or pay for these gifts because while the gifts they received personally were theirs to keep, the gifts given to the White House were not. They settled the accounts by paying for some of the gifts and giving others to the National Park Service (who manages the White House).
Of course you probably believe the other, much bigger lies, about the Clintons, which Snopes has also debunked, so I'm sure you'll dismiss all their research as a coverup by a partisan web site.
I should mention that I don't like the Clintons. Not their politics or policies, not as people (from what I can see; I've never met them). And I never voted for either of them, nor would I. I just prefer facts to conspiracy theories.
So do you get lower range in the winter?
Yes. Heating the cabin uses battery power, which reduces range. In the worst case by as much as 10%, though more often it's around 5%. The exact number depends on the details of course -- the amount of energy used to heat the cabin depends on the outside temperature, the thermostat setting and the amount of time you're driving, which depends on the speed. Normally BEVs have better range in slower traffic, but slower means longer.
It's usually a good idea to turn on the seat warmers and heated steering wheel and then set the cabin temperature a little lower than you normally would, allowing the direct-conduction heat to keep you warm because it's more efficient than heating the cabin air.
Do you get lower range in the summer when you have to run the air conditioning?
No. Well, I suppose a little, but it's so little that you really don't notice it. It turns out that the amount of electricity needed to keep the cabin cool is fairly small, even on very hot days. This seems odd, because running the AC in an ICEV does affect fuel consumption noticeably. I have two theories about why we see this difference. The first is that it's related to ICE inefficiency, that to generate X Joules of energy to run the AC compressor, you must burn 3X Joules worth of additional fuel, so the energy/fuel impact of the same amount of cooling in a BEV is 1/3rd. The second is that ICEV AC units must work harder because in addition to having to remove heat that comes in from the exterior, they also have to remove heat that comes from the engine. I suspect it's mostly the first, with a little help from the second.
Yes, because waiting for the car to preheat isn't always an option.
How long do you think it will take to heat? Remember, this isn't an ICEV. Those are warmed with waste heat from the engine and give you nothing until you've burned enough fuel to heat that large hunk of metal. EVs don't have significant waste heat, which means their heaters use heating elements or heat pumps -- which means they start blowing hot air within seconds, and the cabin temperature rises to very comfortable levels long before an ICEV's heater would start blowing noticeably-warm air.
My Nissan LEAF goes from sub-zero to reasonably-comfortable in two or three minutes. That plus the heated steering wheel means that the first thing I do when I get into the car on a cold winter day is take my gloves off, even without pre-heating. I know I won't need them.
Yeah, but there's a good chance they'll cause the next one.
Oh I've got to hear this story. How exactly do you figure the big tech companies are going to throw the world into recession requiring massive bailouts and forcing people out of their homes? Be specific on the causal mechanism.
Microsoft
You should look up the definitions of "specific", "causal" and "mechanism".
https://xkcd.com/1338/
Assuming Randall Munroe did his research well (and he generally does), it shows that humans represent a significant portion of all land mammals by mass, and that humans plus our domestic animals constitute nearly all land mammal mass. Wild mammals represent a tiny percentage.
Of course the tooltip reminds us that bacteria still outweigh us by thousands to one, so there's still work to be done.
If a cipher is vulnerable to a known plaintext attack, it's utterly broken and unusable. This is how cryptographers see it, and for very good reasons.
And c) All algorithms are vulnerable to known plaintext attacks - even one-time-pads (which are the only provably secure crypto).
The sort of vulnerability we're discussing here is recovery of the key from some number of known plaintext/ciphertext pairs. Yes, any block cipher is "vulnerable" in the sense that given sufficient computing capacity and known plaintext and paired ciphertext exceeding the unicity distance, the key can be recovered. But cryptographers don't consider this a vulnerability unless the amount of computing capacity required is significantly less than brute force search of the key space.
Given sufficiently-fast quantum computers Grover's Algorithm does enable the recovery of 128-bit AES keys in significantly less time than would be required for a brute force search of the key space. Whether sufficiently-fast quantum computers will ever exist is unknown. Similarly, it's unknown whether quantum algorithms better than Grover's will be devices for attacking AES.
As for one-time pads, assuming the keystream satisfies the requirements of a one-time pad, it is not possible to recover a different part of the keystream from observations of arbitrarily-large amounts of known plaintext and corresponding. Obviously you can recover the part of the keystream used for encrypting the known plaintext, but that does you no good since it will never be reused.
Really, in order to be considered any good, a block cipher plus chaining mode must satisfy IND-CCA2 (and therefore also IND-CCA1 and IND-CPA). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... if you're not familiar with these standard cryptographic security models.
Here you've simply restated what I said originally.
Not the worst of it. Apparently the article linked and Slashdot (who took the time to find the source) both missed out on this being about sea slugs, not snails.
How does the precise species of the test subjects affect interpretation of the results?
The sqrt(N) thing only works for known plaintext attacks.
If the message is salted with a random number then it becomes much more difficult.
If a cipher is vulnerable to a known plaintext attack, it's utterly broken and unusable. This is how cryptographers see it, and for very good reasons.
Quantum-computers attacking conventional encryption works like this: - you "build a circuit" that performs the same encryption that was used (e.g. AES, ECC, etc.)... As such, QC defeats traditional encryption entirely.
This is incorrect. Shor's algorithm promises one-step breaks of asymmetric algorithms (RSA, ECC), but it does not work on symmetric ciphers like AES or (as you correctly say) hash functions. However, Grover's algorithm, does work on symmetric ciphers and hash functions. Not as well; given an N-bit search space, Grover's algorithm requires sqrt(N) steps. Still that puts AES-128 at risk of sufficiently large and efficient quantum computers. AES-256 is pretty safe, though, barring some other quantum algorithm that is more effective.
To be clearer: Quantum computers break things based on number factoring, eg. certificate signing.
It doesn't break block ciphers like AES.
It might break blockchain, yes, but, like, who cares?
Quantum computing does weaken both symmetric ciphers like AES and hashing algorithms which are the basis of blockchains (though many blockchains also make use of asymmetric digital signatures which are more deeply affected). Specifically, Grover's Algorith is a quantum algorithm that can find the input that provides a given output for any algorithm with at most sqrt(N) applications of the algorithm. This means that with sufficiently-good quantum computers, you can find a 128-bit AES key for a known plaintext/ciphertest pair in 2^64 steps, which just might be feasible. Similarly, given a 160-bit hash, like SHA-1, you can find a pre-image for a given hash value in 2^80 steps.
Of course, if you use AES-256, Gover's algorithm will find you an answer in 2^128th steps, which is almost certainly forever out of reach Similarly for SHA-2 256. This assumes that Grover's algorithm is the best way to attack these sorts of primitives with a quantum computer, of course. We may discover other approaches that are less general, but better.
it depends on your location. In rural areas USPS seems to be faster while the commercial will take longer bouncing to hubs. Then being placed on the truck for a night.
I live in a rural area. Here UPS is far better, hands down.
As a heavy user of Amazon, I really, really hope that a USPS rate hike convinces Amazon to stop using them. My package delivery has gotten much slower and less reliable since they started using USPS rather than UPS. I'd love to see them go back to using UPS and FedEx exclusively.
Not trying to be overly pedantic here, but do you mean firewall? Routers aren't necessarily security devices.
But they can become massive security problems if they're compromised.
Maybe the ecahhhhnamy needs to be restructured so it can function even without continuous growth, sprawl, and environmental depredation.
It's not the economy that's the problem, it's our approach to aging and retirement. Because the working population supports the retirees, we need to maintain the ratio of workers to retirees above one, preferably well above.
If we can stave this problem off for two or three decades, I think automation will solve it. Or, rather, automation will produce a different problem, where we need very few workers. Total production will be massively higher (and can continue growing unboundedly) so we'll have plenty, we'll just need to distribute it differently.
You mean support about the fact that education level of later generations has been rising in all developed countries? Your national statistics bureau should have numbers about that.
That's not remotely the same thing as your claim.
It used to be that slashdotters were interested in and enjoyed talking about the impact of technology. Not so much anymore.
That's to be expected. Ten years ago, this would have been a little bit mind blowing. Now, most of us reference Youtube to hang a door or change our brakes, so the conclusion of the article is already intuitive.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean we recognize the breadth and depth of the impact. Hanging a door is, or at least seems to be, a completely different kind of thing from being an NBA basketball player. It's not so obvious that YouTube videos can cut years off the time it takes to develop a top-tier basketball player, which is what we are seeing.
I am cognizant that almost every generation thinks that the next generation is a bunch of lazy whiners who should get off their butt and do something useful. This makes me want to question my analysis. But even when I question it, I still come to the same conclusions.
The environment is different for millennials that it was for your generation. You told your parent could not help you, which means you had the opportunity to surpass their wealth and education levels.. Millennials have the opposite perspective: at best they can expect to maintain their parent's level.
Nice assertion. Got any support for it?
Right, but this article is about temporarily pausing history WHILE you are logged into your account.
If you're using a browser and you open an incognito browser window then you're not logged into your account. Not unless you go through the process of logging in from the incognito window, and why would you do that?
Millennials just give back the consideration they get from their employers. Companies treat human resource as a fungible asset at best, or as an undesirable cost at worst. No surprise employees are not loyal to their employer in such an environment.
OTOH, employers are pulling their hair out, trying to figure out how to get millenials to actually work. More than one business owner I know actually looks for older employees because they know from experience that for every ten millenials they hire, seven of them will end up having to be let go because they can't show up on time, or don't do their work. And half of those seven will do so little and leave so quickly that the net return from employing them, after overhead and training costs, will be negative.
I'm not an employer, and I haven't noticed this about my millennial co-workers. But my employer tries very hard to hire only high-achievers, so it's not a representative sample.
As much as I've tried to instill a better work ethic in my own kids, I see it in them as well. One thing I would never have done when I was their age was to quit a job I didn't like until I'd found another one, but all three of my kids who are out of high school have quit jobs in a huff and then been unemployed for a while because they weren't happy with the job offers they got. I definitely quit jobs I didn't like, but not until I had something else. Luckily for them, in the current record-low unemployment economy they do have lots of options. I'd like to think that they're comfortable with walking out of a job and being picky about their next one because they know that employers are desperate, but I don't actually think they make that calculation. When I asked them about their rationale, they never once said "Well, I knew it would be easy to get another job", in fact they complained about how hard it was.
I'm to blame to some degree, I suppose, because they know that I can and will help them out if they need it. When I was their age, I knew that my parents could not help me out financially, though I don't think it would have occurred to me to ask even if they could.
I am cognizant that almost every generation thinks that the next generation is a bunch of lazy whiners who should get off their butt and do something useful. This makes me want to question my analysis. But even when I question it, I still come to the same conclusions.
I think the Millennial generation just values different things, and in many ways I think that's great. I'll be much happier when they can value different things and reliably provide for themselves.
real wages and the middle class have been in decline ever since
Median real income per capita has risen 51% since 1979. https://www.economist.com/grap.... Household wages have declined, but households have shrunk and government transfers have increased.
So you have 2-3 per day that have to sit there until you can address them. If the delay until you can averages, say, five days, that means that you have 10-15 in your inbox all the time? I suppose if you can always deal with them by the end of the day it's not too bad. I usually can't.
Once you're already at Inbox Zero, you can generally manage, in the immediate, whatever email comes through.
Otherwise, in the case of the ~1% of emails which I cannot immediately deal with, they sit in my inbox until I can. If there's an unread email in my inbox it means it is of high importance and I need to keep looking at it until it's resolved.
For me this is true for personal email, but not work, where I get hundreds of new messages per day, so the 1% I can't deal with immediately mean that I have several per day that have to sit there... pretty quickly this means I'm very far from inbox zero. Or would be. Google Inbox's ability to "snooze" threads until a future date or location is the only thing that makes it possible. I'm surprised that more MUAs haven't picked up this extremely valuable feature.
How do you handle emails that you can't address right now?
I like to ask my right wing friends/acquaintances if healthcare is a right or not try to make them answer yes or no. After 5-10 minutes of speeches and hemming and hawing they'll either say 'no' or admit we ought to have a national healthcare system.
Your right wing friends are really that unable to express their own views? You should get some better right wing friends... oh, but then they might be able to successfully challenge your views, so I can see why you avoid them.
FWIW, no healthcare is not a "right". Positive rights are a very, very bad idea. Education is also not a "right".
OTOH, it's probably better for society to provide free education, and free basic healthcare. Not because they're rights but because providing them solves a lot of problems.