I prefer "piracy" for people who are profiting from copyright infringement (e.g., duplicating copyrighted works and selling them). Copyright infringement is good for acquiring a duplicate of a copyrighted work against the copyright holder's consent (e.g., downloading music on the interwebs). Copyright violation is appropriate for other violations of copyright law (e.g., making use of GPLed code without following the restrictions of the GPL).
This is usually the case in most cases of real interest. You don't need a robust ability to disguise things against casual inspection. Beyond casual inspection, they will seize the system. If TrueCrypt is really your primary barrier against police investigation and you will have advance warning if they come to take your hard drives away, you're probably better off using a more robust destruction mechanism (like wiping the entire hard drive).
They'll create a copy of the disk and work from that.
Even if TrueCrypt wasn't open source, they'd make the disk image read-only. If they wanted to get fancy, they'd intercept and log any attempted writes to the image (clearly indicating use of the third password).
But, it is open source, so they can easily modify the code to detect this third password, *not* overwrite that block, and warn the investigator that such a procedure was attempted.
I agree. To extend my statement, if they were forced, coerced, or tricked into complying, they shouldn't be found guilty and don't need amnesty; if they weren't, they shouldn't get amnesty. You don't get to make illegal actions just because someone in "the government" asked you to.
I'm guessing for the sake of analogy the OP isn't implying that the cop then arrests you. The cop isn't interested in catching a bank robber he created, but robbing the bank, and he orders you to help him.
If they were forced to comply, or were convinced by a reliable source that the action was not illegal, they don't need amnesty -- they'd have a hard time being prosecuted.
If I recall correctly, TrueCrypt stores the header for the inner encrypted partition at the 3rd block from the end in the outer partition; the remainder of the inner partition stretches backwards from the header toward the front of the disk.
You can certainly provide evidence that you have no inner TrueCrypt volume by storing a file in your outer volume that includes the inner-volume block (and could not be recognizable to TrueCrypt as a header).
TrueCrypt is not magic. It's good technology, but it's not magic.
Generally it's water that's the limiting factor, not heat or lack of shade. Moving water into a desert is a difficult and expensive enterprise.
Some proposals may have positive environmental impact, yes. A smart proposal would have minimal negative environmental impact -- and with so many proposals, a fair number of them are probably smart.:-)
920 kg/m^3 is the density of ice. 1000 kg/m^3 is the density of fresh water.
The mass of water an iceberg displaces is equal to the mass of the iceberg. As ice has a lower density than water, part of the ice is above the water line. However, when that ice melts, it's water again and has the density of water. You can easily determine that the volume that water takes up is equal to the volume of water displaced by the iceberg. So, melting icebergs don't raise the sea level. Melting land-bound ice does.
There is the density difference between fresh and salt water, which is about 2.5%.
Funny, yes, but many climatologists are physicists.
I have limited first-hand experience that climate researchers are dull, yes. The original complaint was that he wasn't a climate researcher. I figure the information should be presented by an expert who is actively researching in field or someone who's charismatic. Both would be great, but as you said, hard to find.
I didn't say that everywhere they would put up solar panels would be a lawn. I gave one possibility for environmental impact.
Incidentally, all of the property covered by this decision is public land, so it's not being used for growing crops.
Also, speaking of ignorant, "grass" is not just the green stuff in front of people's houses. Grasses grow all over California and serve to keep the soil together. (Really, I should have mentioned all plants whose root structure is necessary to prevent erosion.)
Are you just complaining, or are you trying to say that there's no possibility of environmental impact in arid areas? If you're saying you can't do environmental damage to a desert, you're the ignorant one.
Let me clarify. I'm not sure why people choose to have him do the speaking. He seems genuinely interested in the issue to me -- though he certainly could just be in it for the speaking fees, notoriety, etc. That doesn't mean I'd want him speaking on my behalf; he's neither a scientist nor terribly charismatic.
He doesn't want 100% proof, he just wants an educated guess.
Of course, we have an educated guess. So educated, it's not proper to continue calling it a "guess". However, some combination of not paying attention to scientific reports and not liking the answers has caused him to decide, without a reasonable basis for doing so, that anthropogenic climate change evidence doesn't meet the standards of "an educated guess".
Al Gore is just an environmentalist and a politician. In terms of delivering facts about climate change, he's not relevant. I'm not quite sure why he does so much speaking about it -- often scientific ideas are presented by non-scientists, but then, at least, they should be chosen for their charisma.
Deserts do have native life, although I don't know if they rely on plants to hold the ground together properly.
Really, though, if you read closely enough to note that it's in the southwest (not just deserts, but the rest of California, too), you could just read the article, where they give examples of environmental impact.:-)
Mostly the point of my response was that there are potential environmental impacts (and these are all proposals to put commercial solar farms on public land), but the poster seemed to be thinking of climatological impacts, when what they're interested in is impact on the local area.
You could build a giant array of solar panels over area covered by grass. With no sunlight, the grass dies, the rains wash away the soil, havoc commences, etc.
As all you have is correlation, this can be equally interpreted as: "areas that are the most regulated have the highest rate of violence" or "areas that have the highest rate of violence are the most regulated"
There's no way to tell the two apart just from correlation.
In general, outsourcing is caused by labor being cheaper in a different area.
A minimum wage is one specific reason (not general) why labor might be cheaper in one area than another.
Of course, unless you're implying that the minimum wage significantly influences the wages of workers who earn well above the minimum wage, much outsourcing (like IT outsourcing) isn't caused by minimum wage.
I don't give people excuses, I just correct people who are wrong. But yes, Americans should (on average) eat less, putting on muscle mass is a metabolic gold mine, and eating "low-fat" foods can often be a mistake (fat and protein are filling).
According to the calculations in the paper, cosmic rays in the energy range that would be produced in the LHC impact Earth at the rate of (very roughly) 1000 per second.
Black hole production from cosmic rays is rarer. In any given neutron star, you're looking at something in the vicinity of 1 cosmic ray black hole per year impacting the neutron star.
I am a physicist, though not a biologist. What you're doing is misapplying a physical principle. Just as a thermodynamic treatment of wealth, while perhaps useful to an economist, is not physics, washing over a complex chemical system (metabolism) with first-order energy conservation arguments is not physics. Physical law makes demands about mass-energy conservation that people are still held to, but these don't actually shed much light at all on the system. It doesn't actually follow from mass-energy conservation, nor any other physical law, that consuming fewer calories necessarily must make you lose weight. It is just conveniently close enough to fact to make it easy for you to make such an poor argument.
And now, since apparently just saying it makes your argument magically better, I will close with "Physics really works".
They're very convincing if you have any level of scientific background.
First, you're confusing "absence of evidence" with "evidence to the contrary". If I know there's an effect that should destroy any neutron star or white dwarf within 10^3 years and I see neutron stars and white dwarfs 10^6 years old, this effect is not occuring. This is "evidence to the contrary".
Second, "not very often and probably less often on the surface of the planet" is completely unquantified. This is the usual "scaremonger tactic" -- no data, no quantification, and the assumption that quantification doesn't exist or is impossible. One can compute how often it occurs -- near neutron stars or on the surface of the planet. In fact, the paper has done so.
It's good, quantified science. By comparison, "but something might happen" is a worthless argument.
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer "piracy" for people who are profiting from copyright infringement (e.g., duplicating copyrighted works and selling them). Copyright infringement is good for acquiring a duplicate of a copyrighted work against the copyright holder's consent (e.g., downloading music on the interwebs). Copyright violation is appropriate for other violations of copyright law (e.g., making use of GPLed code without following the restrictions of the GPL).
This is usually the case in most cases of real interest. You don't need a robust ability to disguise things against casual inspection. Beyond casual inspection, they will seize the system. If TrueCrypt is really your primary barrier against police investigation and you will have advance warning if they come to take your hard drives away, you're probably better off using a more robust destruction mechanism (like wiping the entire hard drive).
They'll create a copy of the disk and work from that.
Even if TrueCrypt wasn't open source, they'd make the disk image read-only. If they wanted to get fancy, they'd intercept and log any attempted writes to the image (clearly indicating use of the third password).
But, it is open source, so they can easily modify the code to detect this third password, *not* overwrite that block, and warn the investigator that such a procedure was attempted.
I agree. To extend my statement, if they were forced, coerced, or tricked into complying, they shouldn't be found guilty and don't need amnesty; if they weren't, they shouldn't get amnesty. You don't get to make illegal actions just because someone in "the government" asked you to.
I'm guessing for the sake of analogy the OP isn't implying that the cop then arrests you. The cop isn't interested in catching a bank robber he created, but robbing the bank, and he orders you to help him.
If they were forced to comply, or were convinced by a reliable source that the action was not illegal, they don't need amnesty -- they'd have a hard time being prosecuted.
Not anymore; they changed a number of years ago. (Apparently many French though it was a weird idea -- but apparently not enough to prevent it.)
First, most computer forensic investigators are all familiar with the capabilities of TrueCrypt.
Second, unless they've substantially changed how TrueCrypt works, it's trivial to disprove that you have a hidden volume (but must do it in advance).
If I recall correctly, TrueCrypt stores the header for the inner encrypted partition at the 3rd block from the end in the outer partition; the remainder of the inner partition stretches backwards from the header toward the front of the disk.
You can certainly provide evidence that you have no inner TrueCrypt volume by storing a file in your outer volume that includes the inner-volume block (and could not be recognizable to TrueCrypt as a header).
TrueCrypt is not magic. It's good technology, but it's not magic.
Generally it's water that's the limiting factor, not heat or lack of shade. Moving water into a desert is a difficult and expensive enterprise.
Some proposals may have positive environmental impact, yes. A smart proposal would have minimal negative environmental impact -- and with so many proposals, a fair number of them are probably smart. :-)
920 kg/m^3 is the density of ice. 1000 kg/m^3 is the density of fresh water.
The mass of water an iceberg displaces is equal to the mass of the iceberg. As ice has a lower density than water, part of the ice is above the water line. However, when that ice melts, it's water again and has the density of water. You can easily determine that the volume that water takes up is equal to the volume of water displaced by the iceberg. So, melting icebergs don't raise the sea level. Melting land-bound ice does.
There is the density difference between fresh and salt water, which is about 2.5%.
Funny, yes, but many climatologists are physicists.
I have limited first-hand experience that climate researchers are dull, yes. The original complaint was that he wasn't a climate researcher. I figure the information should be presented by an expert who is actively researching in field or someone who's charismatic. Both would be great, but as you said, hard to find.
I didn't say that everywhere they would put up solar panels would be a lawn. I gave one possibility for environmental impact.
Incidentally, all of the property covered by this decision is public land, so it's not being used for growing crops.
Also, speaking of ignorant, "grass" is not just the green stuff in front of people's houses. Grasses grow all over California and serve to keep the soil together. (Really, I should have mentioned all plants whose root structure is necessary to prevent erosion.)
Are you just complaining, or are you trying to say that there's no possibility of environmental impact in arid areas? If you're saying you can't do environmental damage to a desert, you're the ignorant one.
Let me clarify. I'm not sure why people choose to have him do the speaking. He seems genuinely interested in the issue to me -- though he certainly could just be in it for the speaking fees, notoriety, etc. That doesn't mean I'd want him speaking on my behalf; he's neither a scientist nor terribly charismatic.
He doesn't want 100% proof, he just wants an educated guess.
Of course, we have an educated guess. So educated, it's not proper to continue calling it a "guess". However, some combination of not paying attention to scientific reports and not liking the answers has caused him to decide, without a reasonable basis for doing so, that anthropogenic climate change evidence doesn't meet the standards of "an educated guess".
Actually, free-floating ice is displacing 100% of the volume it would displace once melted.
Al Gore is just an environmentalist and a politician. In terms of delivering facts about climate change, he's not relevant. I'm not quite sure why he does so much speaking about it -- often scientific ideas are presented by non-scientists, but then, at least, they should be chosen for their charisma.
It does contain news -- the news that the current melting rate of the polar ice is the highest recorded.
It's just that the rest of it is speculation.
Deserts do have native life, although I don't know if they rely on plants to hold the ground together properly.
Really, though, if you read closely enough to note that it's in the southwest (not just deserts, but the rest of California, too), you could just read the article, where they give examples of environmental impact. :-)
Mostly the point of my response was that there are potential environmental impacts (and these are all proposals to put commercial solar farms on public land), but the poster seemed to be thinking of climatological impacts, when what they're interested in is impact on the local area.
You could build a giant array of solar panels over area covered by grass. With no sunlight, the grass dies, the rains wash away the soil, havoc commences, etc.
As all you have is correlation, this can be equally interpreted as:
"areas that are the most regulated have the highest rate of violence"
or
"areas that have the highest rate of violence are the most regulated"
There's no way to tell the two apart just from correlation.
In general, outsourcing is caused by labor being cheaper in a different area.
A minimum wage is one specific reason (not general) why labor might be cheaper in one area than another.
Of course, unless you're implying that the minimum wage significantly influences the wages of workers who earn well above the minimum wage, much outsourcing (like IT outsourcing) isn't caused by minimum wage.
I don't give people excuses, I just correct people who are wrong. But yes, Americans should (on average) eat less, putting on muscle mass is a metabolic gold mine, and eating "low-fat" foods can often be a mistake (fat and protein are filling).
According to the calculations in the paper, cosmic rays in the energy range that would be produced in the LHC impact Earth at the rate of (very roughly) 1000 per second.
Black hole production from cosmic rays is rarer. In any given neutron star, you're looking at something in the vicinity of 1 cosmic ray black hole per year impacting the neutron star.
I am a physicist, though not a biologist. What you're doing is misapplying a physical principle. Just as a thermodynamic treatment of wealth, while perhaps useful to an economist, is not physics, washing over a complex chemical system (metabolism) with first-order energy conservation arguments is not physics. Physical law makes demands about mass-energy conservation that people are still held to, but these don't actually shed much light at all on the system. It doesn't actually follow from mass-energy conservation, nor any other physical law, that consuming fewer calories necessarily must make you lose weight. It is just conveniently close enough to fact to make it easy for you to make such an poor argument.
And now, since apparently just saying it makes your argument magically better, I will close with "Physics really works".
They're very convincing if you have any level of scientific background.
First, you're confusing "absence of evidence" with "evidence to the contrary". If I know there's an effect that should destroy any neutron star or white dwarf within 10^3 years and I see neutron stars and white dwarfs 10^6 years old, this effect is not occuring. This is "evidence to the contrary".
Second, "not very often and probably less often on the surface of the planet" is completely unquantified. This is the usual "scaremonger tactic" -- no data, no quantification, and the assumption that quantification doesn't exist or is impossible. One can compute how often it occurs -- near neutron stars or on the surface of the planet. In fact, the paper has done so.
It's good, quantified science. By comparison, "but something might happen" is a worthless argument.