Maybe so, but "no major wars" is certainly a nice step in the right direction. The world has been getting more peaceful for some time now, little as you would realize it from the TV news.
"The Privacy and Security Rules apply only to covered entities. Individuals, organizations, and agencies that meet the definition of a covered entity under HIPAA must comply with the Rules' requirements to protect the privacy and security of health information and must provide individuals with certain rights with respect to their health information. If an entity is not a covered entity, it does not have to comply with the Privacy Rule or the Security Rule."
The one thing he got wrong is that while the life insurance company's use of health information is not covered by HIPAA, the medical information clearinghouse *is*, as such clearinghouses are "covered entities" (along with health care providers and health plans--while your life insurance isn't covered by HIPAA, your health insurance is).
In the US, dollar bills were never withdrawn from circulation. Nobody made you take coins, you could always have bills. And that's what everybody continued to use, while the coins sat in the vaults, untouched.
The IPad Interface has been around for 5 years in various forms of iPhones, iPods and iPad's, It wouldn't surprise me one bit that most people in an apple store would know how to use an Ipad Mini, since it's basically the same as the previous systems.
Compare that to WIndows 8, which it's interface is about 1 year old
Congratulations! You have figured out that in UIs, being new and unfamiliar is a *bad thing*. Unless you can bring something notably better to table as the benefit of your changes, it doesn't work, because change, requiring the user to have to learn it, is, by itself, a bad thing.
Everybody in this database is there because they've used a stolen cell phone. Thus, every one of them is guilty of receiving stolen property, at the very elast.
The windows pc+user is "Territory", applications have the main function of occupying it, and if feasible preventing the competition to do the same as much as possible. Exerting control yields profits.
Exactly. Program A completely exits when the user shuts it down. Program B keeps most of itself still in memory and running in the background when the user "shuts it down." Result: When the user starts up Program B again, he is pleased at how fast it comes up. When he starts up Program A again, it has to load--this is an acceptable price for not turning your PC into a mass of sloth all the time, but the user doesn't see that part. And the loading is even slowed down by Program B hanging eating up memory and cycles! So the user thinks of Program B as an efficient, fast program, and Program A as a slow piece of crap.
If the DSA spec has entropy requirements that they were not meeting in key generation, then, yes, they were not DSA keys, but merely DSA-compatible keys.
In war time I can very well imagine a one-time pad being re-used for practical reasons, for example not having another one at hand and still needing to send out another message. Especially in older times, like the WW2 era.
In which case, it's no longer a one-time pad. The user may keep calling it that, but calling a cow a horse doesn't make it a horse.
Then also a whole lot of "security by obscurity" kicks in: not knowing two messages are encrypted with the same one-time pad, when you expect they are indeed using different pads, does add a real extra barrier for a potential interceptor to decrypt them.
This makes no sense at all. A true one-time pad is completely unbreakable to anyone not in possession of the key. Deviating from the one-time pad protocol cannot do anything but weaken it.
It doesn't matter that the message isn't random, the *key* is random, and never reused. While the message (most likely) not something nonsensical, it could be *anything* that *does* make sense, as well. You can't narrow it down to something that makes sense or something that doesn't make sense. You can't narrow it down at all.
Is the reduction not even 40% ? I'd thought it was 50% because gas turbines were also more efficient or something.
That may be. The figures I quoted were based on equal amounts of raw energy produced by combustion, so more efficient machinery for using that heat wouldn't be factored in.
Meh. For certain values of "significantly". Compared to coal, yeah, you get a pretty good cut--about a 38% reduction. Compared to oil, you're not doing nearly as well: it's somewhere in the 4% to 15% range depending on exactly what kind of oil you're using.
We are also the only country going full speed ahead on fracking, giving us lots of natural gas to use which burns without emitting CO2.
Um, no. Burning natual gas emits lots of CO2. Less than coal or oil, because so much more of it is hydrogen, but there's still a good amount of carbon there and it emits CO2 when burned.
Slashdot Mirror
At least he didn't say "Global GPS System".
Maybe so, but "no major wars" is certainly a nice step in the right direction. The world has been getting more peaceful for some time now, little as you would realize it from the TV news.
Is that where you can't hit anything if you're firing the red lasers?
But that's not what Al Gore told me!
Well, except for Vint. He's a Cerf.
In a business where you have high fixed costs but small incremental costs (which describes Microsoft to a T), this can indeed be the case.
Actually, no, he's mostly right, to my surprise. From http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/index.html:
"The Privacy and Security Rules apply only to covered entities. Individuals, organizations, and agencies that meet the definition of a covered entity under HIPAA must comply with the Rules' requirements to protect the privacy and security of health information and must provide individuals with certain rights with respect to their health information. If an entity is not a covered entity, it does not have to comply with the Privacy Rule or the Security Rule."
The one thing he got wrong is that while the life insurance company's use of health information is not covered by HIPAA, the medical information clearinghouse *is*, as such clearinghouses are "covered entities" (along with health care providers and health plans--while your life insurance isn't covered by HIPAA, your health insurance is).
In the US, dollar bills were never withdrawn from circulation. Nobody made you take coins, you could always have bills. And that's what everybody continued to use, while the coins sat in the vaults, untouched.
And yet again with the "Presidential Gold Coins"
"As far as I know" and "yet" being the operative words. If the user can disable UEFI, then malware will be able to, if not just now, then soon.
Congratulations! You have figured out that in UIs, being new and unfamiliar is a *bad thing*. Unless you can bring something notably better to table as the benefit of your changes, it doesn't work, because change, requiring the user to have to learn it, is, by itself, a bad thing.
http://puppetlabs.com/
There you go.
Only if they're armored.
You beat me to it.
Everybody in this database is there because they've used a stolen cell phone. Thus, every one of them is guilty of receiving stolen property, at the very elast.
Exactly. Program A completely exits when the user shuts it down. Program B keeps most of itself still in memory and running in the background when the user "shuts it down." Result: When the user starts up Program B again, he is pleased at how fast it comes up. When he starts up Program A again, it has to load--this is an acceptable price for not turning your PC into a mass of sloth all the time, but the user doesn't see that part. And the loading is even slowed down by Program B hanging eating up memory and cycles! So the user thinks of Program B as an efficient, fast program, and Program A as a slow piece of crap.
Games should be *satisfying*. Making them fun is one way to do that, but it's not the only way.
If the DSA spec has entropy requirements that they were not meeting in key generation, then, yes, they were not DSA keys, but merely DSA-compatible keys.
In which case, it's no longer a one-time pad. The user may keep calling it that, but calling a cow a horse doesn't make it a horse.
This makes no sense at all. A true one-time pad is completely unbreakable to anyone not in possession of the key. Deviating from the one-time pad protocol cannot do anything but weaken it.
It doesn't matter that the message isn't random, the *key* is random, and never reused. While the message (most likely) not something nonsensical, it could be *anything* that *does* make sense, as well. You can't narrow it down to something that makes sense or something that doesn't make sense. You can't narrow it down at all.
In which case, YOU AREN'T USING A ONE-TIME PAD! It's called "one-time" for a reason, you know.
That may be. The figures I quoted were based on equal amounts of raw energy produced by combustion, so more efficient machinery for using that heat wouldn't be factored in.
Meh. For certain values of "significantly". Compared to coal, yeah, you get a pretty good cut--about a 38% reduction. Compared to oil, you're not doing nearly as well: it's somewhere in the 4% to 15% range depending on exactly what kind of oil you're using.
Um, no. Burning natual gas emits lots of CO2. Less than coal or oil, because so much more of it is hydrogen, but there's still a good amount of carbon there and it emits CO2 when burned.
Last time I tried that, the antimatter injectors got stuck and polarity of the positron flow was reversed! We never did get it to work right...