It might be wrong to find them completely innocent of assault. However, if the defense were to raise the excuse defense of provocation, it would be entirely reasonable -- it only requires that the juror believe that the accused acted because of provocation and that a reasonable person would have acted similarly.
That's only worthwhile if you're using the SSNs to compare them against external inputs. In essence, if you're using them as a form of authentication. That's a stupid idea to begin with. As this is the Department of Revenue, they're probably using the SSNs for their actual, tax-related purpose and need them in their original form.
Despite what people seem to think, throwing encryption at a data security problem generally doesn't make it go away.
Disappearing is not an option. So the only ways to "not be there" are to pass faster, which I will not do, or not pass at all. But on a respectably busy road, people going much faster than you aren't particularly visible until they're quite close. Do you live somewhere there's only 2-3 cars on a road at a time?
Don't be a jackass. I see more than enough tailgaters when I'm going 10 over in the right lane and other absurd scenarios. Seriously, sir, the left lane is right there. Why not just use it? (It's a lot more common to see tailgaters when you're in the left lane, too, but that mostly occurs to me when I am already passing someone and a person behind me wants to at the same time pass both of us at 20 over.)
If you assume that the purpose of a ban is to have zero of the product owned. It isn't, though, because that doesn't work. The goal is to decrease the availability of the produce and increase the level of effort necessary to obtain it.
Banning weapons will do NOTHING to stop gun crime.
If you have actual data instead of vague assertions, I recommend selling it to the NRA. They'd be happy to have real data.
Okay, "up to" only applies if you are computing using reasonable maximums, which you aren't. $20/year is a reasonable estimate, but not "up to".
25% efficiency improvement is pretty big. 400 W is a large load for some machines, but isn't that huge a load. $0.10/kWh is actually substantially below the US average of $0.12/kWh.
The biggest variable factor here, though, is computer uptime. Hugely variable. My home PC probably sees 500-800 hr/yr use. My work PC probably sees your estimate of 2000 hr/yr. My HTPC is on all the time, which would be ~8700 hr/yr if it didn't occasionally go to sleep. Many of my coworkers' work computers are on all the time and don't go to sleep -- which is really about 8700 hr/yr.
So that's a factor of 10 difference between one reasonable usage scenario and another common but slightly less reasonable scenario. That makes a big difference.
Aren't in the US sick leaves taken from your holiday?
In the US, it's up to your employer.
My employer actually switched policies recently. We used to have unlimited sick leave that was on a take-it-as-you-need-it basis. We recently switched to having a fixed pool of leave time that is used by both vacation and sick leave. The only benefit here was that the amount of time we get was increased, so if you rarely take sick leave, you have more vacation time now. Still, I don't think that puts incentives in the right places.
King Arthur flour: Although yeast makes its own food by converting the starch in flour into sugar, a little “fast-food fix” of pure sugar right at the start gives it the quick energy it needs to work. (If you need to avoid sugar, just leave it out; your bread will be just fine, although you may find it doesn’t brown as well).
Kitchen Savvy Wheat flour also contains two important enzymes, amylase and diastase, that convert starch to sugars that the yeast can digest, so even without adding sugar it is possible to get the bread to rise. Many bread recipes such as traditional baguette and pizza are made simply with flour,water, yeast and salt, and no sugar at all.
It is not hardtack. You just apparently don't know bread chemistry.
Take, for example, Leahy's well-known no-knead bread. This is the same as hardtack to you?
How about sourdough? That doesn't even require adding yeast if you're fortunate. Yes, yes, sourdough is exactly the same as hardtack. Or not. Hell, that Wikipedia page even tells you how the yeast gets sugar out of starch.
Confidentiality is the property you're talking about. It's what encryption, in general, provides. You are quite correct that it makes it so the information can't be stolen.
You should be careful about assuming things about integrity protection. For some encryption modes and for most simple attacks, yes, it will render blocks of your plaintext illegible, which is detectable. But consider the problem with encrypting data of a known structure (but unknown content) with a stream cipher (or something like a block cipher's CTR mode), for example. A stream cipher produces a high-entropy stream of bits that's XORed with the plaintext to produce the ciphertext (and vice versa). So a bit-flip in the ciphertext is a bit-flip in the plaintext. If you know the structure of the plaintext, you may be able to make a properly-selected bit flip very bad indeed.
If your boot software is encrypted, how does your system boot at all?
Oh, I see, you're thinking of something like Truecrypt. So, when you boot, where does the code that knows how to decrypt your hard drive live? Why can't the attacker put the keylogger there?
If you're really paranoid, you should keep in mind that encryption doesn't really provide data integrity, it only provides confidentiality. That is, if someone steals your laptop and looks at your hard drive, they should get no information, provided your passphrase is sufficiently unguessable. It does not necessarily protect you against someone changing the data on your hard drive, though that might be rather inconvenient. Do not treat an encrypted hard drive as protection against physical attacks!
You should also keep in mind that naturally an encrypted hard drive protects against no lower-level threat. A BIOS-level keylogger or malware will work just fine.
I'm in a group that dresses up like it's the 80s and holds candlelight vigils to promote world peace. I sent out flyers recently about it using an archaic telecommunications medium.
That's right, it was the "Wax Pax to the Max" fax.
While vaccine is not shortened "vax" (in common usage), "antivax" is the common shortening for the anti-vaccination lobby. Stupid? Yes. Common usage? Also yes.
If you're going to be nitpicky, people opposed to VAX would be anti-VAX, not antivax.
Are you student in a public school? Staff claims that it's "the law" to take shots. Some schools do not even ask permissions, they just give shots.
What town does this? It it West Sue Us Please, or North I Made This Fact Up?
You have a newborn? Good luck trying not to have your baby taking shots.
I do, and it's pretty straightforward. We have to sign off on everything. We had to sign off on and initial every procedure, even ones that are, to me, no-brainers. Now, our pediatrician will not accept us as clients if we choose not to get vaccines, but to be honest, that's one of the reasons I go to him.
Which bit of "fatty acids, wheat gluten and enzymes" do you not understand?
The part where that's not the quoted sentence.
Anti-staling agents used in bread are fatty acids as monoglyceride and diglyceride and wheat gluten and enzymes
You don't see a grammatical difference between the two?
fatty acids as monoglyceride and diglyceride and wheat gluten and enzymes
How the fuck is that supposed to be parsed? Is this what passes for writing, barfing a bunch of nouns into a sentence, stitching them together with arbitrarily-selected words, and then leaving it to the reader to puzzle it out?
Even if you take out your red pen and completely fix it: "wheat gluten, enzymes, and fatty acids, such as mono- and diglycerides", it's still wrong, because mono- and diglycerides aren't fatty acids, they're fatty acid derivatives.
I realize that you just copied it from Wikipedia, but that sentence is an uninformative grammatical nightmare that happens to contain a lot of convincing chemical names.
Slashdot Mirror
It might be wrong to find them completely innocent of assault. However, if the defense were to raise the excuse defense of provocation, it would be entirely reasonable -- it only requires that the juror believe that the accused acted because of provocation and that a reasonable person would have acted similarly.
Each additional level of obscurity beyond that raises the time and knowledge required to locate, understand and decrypt the data.
So... what you're advocating is literally security through obscurity?
That's only worthwhile if you're using the SSNs to compare them against external inputs. In essence, if you're using them as a form of authentication. That's a stupid idea to begin with. As this is the Department of Revenue, they're probably using the SSNs for their actual, tax-related purpose and need them in their original form.
Despite what people seem to think, throwing encryption at a data security problem generally doesn't make it go away.
Disappearing is not an option. So the only ways to "not be there" are to pass faster, which I will not do, or not pass at all. But on a respectably busy road, people going much faster than you aren't particularly visible until they're quite close. Do you live somewhere there's only 2-3 cars on a road at a time?
That's an interesting story, but one not supported by facts.
Prohibition, generally held up as one of the least effective bans, decreased alcohol consumption by 30-70%, depending on the year.
How about the NYC ban on trans fats? While not necessarily a good idea, measurements indicate it did exactly what it set out to do.
Don't be a jackass. I see more than enough tailgaters when I'm going 10 over in the right lane and other absurd scenarios. Seriously, sir, the left lane is right there. Why not just use it? (It's a lot more common to see tailgaters when you're in the left lane, too, but that mostly occurs to me when I am already passing someone and a person behind me wants to at the same time pass both of us at 20 over.)
You can't ban any product effectively.
If you assume that the purpose of a ban is to have zero of the product owned. It isn't, though, because that doesn't work. The goal is to decrease the availability of the produce and increase the level of effort necessary to obtain it.
Banning weapons will do NOTHING to stop gun crime.
If you have actual data instead of vague assertions, I recommend selling it to the NRA. They'd be happy to have real data.
Criminals, by definition, do not abide by the laws.
They're often not criminals when they get the gun. They might be people with criminal intent, but they're often not.
Crimes of opportunity and passion are usually committed with the tools at hand and account for a very large fraction of homicides.
I do have strong feelings about gun laws but I do not think that this is the time to air them.
Yet you did.
Okay, "up to" only applies if you are computing using reasonable maximums, which you aren't. $20/year is a reasonable estimate, but not "up to".
25% efficiency improvement is pretty big. 400 W is a large load for some machines, but isn't that huge a load. $0.10/kWh is actually substantially below the US average of $0.12/kWh.
The biggest variable factor here, though, is computer uptime. Hugely variable. My home PC probably sees 500-800 hr/yr use. My work PC probably sees your estimate of 2000 hr/yr. My HTPC is on all the time, which would be ~8700 hr/yr if it didn't occasionally go to sleep. Many of my coworkers' work computers are on all the time and don't go to sleep -- which is really about 8700 hr/yr.
So that's a factor of 10 difference between one reasonable usage scenario and another common but slightly less reasonable scenario. That makes a big difference.
It's almost as if there isn't a whole field of cryptography dedicated to signals that are trivial to verify and nearly impossible to fake.
Wait, there is.
2) VLC works on Windows 8. What you mean is "Metro", and nobody cares about that.
Ostensibly, almost 1200 people care about it so far.
Last time I checked, a paper book does not have two radio transmitters inside.
Neither does a Kindle in airplane mode.
Aren't in the US sick leaves taken from your holiday?
In the US, it's up to your employer.
My employer actually switched policies recently. We used to have unlimited sick leave that was on a take-it-as-you-need-it basis. We recently switched to having a fixed pool of leave time that is used by both vacation and sick leave. The only benefit here was that the amount of time we get was increased, so if you rarely take sick leave, you have more vacation time now. Still, I don't think that puts incentives in the right places.
King Arthur flour: Although yeast makes its own food by converting the starch in flour into sugar, a little “fast-food fix” of pure sugar right at the start gives it the quick energy it needs to work. (If you need to avoid sugar, just leave it out; your bread will be just fine, although you may find it doesn’t brown as well).
Kitchen Savvy Wheat flour also contains two important enzymes, amylase and diastase, that convert starch to sugars that the yeast can digest, so even without adding sugar it is possible to get the bread to rise. Many bread recipes such as traditional baguette and pizza are made simply with flour,water, yeast and salt, and no sugar at all.
It is not hardtack. You just apparently don't know bread chemistry.
Take, for example, Leahy's well-known no-knead bread. This is the same as hardtack to you?
How about sourdough? That doesn't even require adding yeast if you're fortunate. Yes, yes, sourdough is exactly the same as hardtack. Or not. Hell, that Wikipedia page even tells you how the yeast gets sugar out of starch.
Doh. I broke my italics.
Confidentiality is the property you're talking about. It's what encryption, in general, provides. You are quite correct that it makes it so the information can't be stolen.
You should be careful about assuming things about integrity protection. For some encryption modes and for most simple attacks, yes, it will render blocks of your plaintext illegible, which is detectable. But consider the problem with encrypting data of a known structure (but unknown content) with a stream cipher (or something like a block cipher's CTR mode), for example. A stream cipher produces a high-entropy stream of bits that's XORed with the plaintext to produce the ciphertext (and vice versa). So a bit-flip in the ciphertext is a bit-flip in the plaintext. If you know the structure of the plaintext, you may be able to make a properly-selected bit flip very bad indeed.
If your boot software is encrypted, how does your system boot at all?
Oh, I see, you're thinking of something like Truecrypt. So, when you boot, where does the code that knows how to decrypt your hard drive live? Why can't the attacker put the keylogger there?
If you're really paranoid, you should keep in mind that encryption doesn't really provide data integrity, it only provides confidentiality. That is, if someone steals your laptop and looks at your hard drive, they should get no information, provided your passphrase is sufficiently unguessable. It does not necessarily protect you against someone changing the data on your hard drive, though that might be rather inconvenient. Do not treat an encrypted hard drive as protection against physical attacks!
You should also keep in mind that naturally an encrypted hard drive protects against no lower-level threat. A BIOS-level keylogger or malware will work just fine.
Wisdom is for priests, Intelligence is for wizards.
Only one example? Don't be so lax.
I'm in a group that dresses up like it's the 80s and holds candlelight vigils to promote world peace. I sent out flyers recently about it using an archaic telecommunications medium.
That's right, it was the "Wax Pax to the Max" fax.
While vaccine is not shortened "vax" (in common usage), "antivax" is the common shortening for the anti-vaccination lobby. Stupid? Yes. Common usage? Also yes.
If you're going to be nitpicky, people opposed to VAX would be anti-VAX, not antivax.
Are you student in a public school? Staff claims that it's "the law" to take shots. Some schools do not even ask permissions, they just give shots.
What town does this? It it West Sue Us Please, or North I Made This Fact Up?
You have a newborn? Good luck trying not to have your baby taking shots.
I do, and it's pretty straightforward. We have to sign off on everything. We had to sign off on and initial every procedure, even ones that are, to me, no-brainers. Now, our pediatrician will not accept us as clients if we choose not to get vaccines, but to be honest, that's one of the reasons I go to him.
Which bit of "fatty acids, wheat gluten and enzymes" do you not understand?
The part where that's not the quoted sentence.
Anti-staling agents used in bread are fatty acids as monoglyceride and diglyceride and wheat gluten and enzymes
You don't see a grammatical difference between the two?
fatty acids as monoglyceride and diglyceride and wheat gluten and enzymes
How the fuck is that supposed to be parsed? Is this what passes for writing, barfing a bunch of nouns into a sentence, stitching them together with arbitrarily-selected words, and then leaving it to the reader to puzzle it out?
Even if you take out your red pen and completely fix it: "wheat gluten, enzymes, and fatty acids, such as mono- and diglycerides", it's still wrong, because mono- and diglycerides aren't fatty acids, they're fatty acid derivatives.
I realize that you just copied it from Wikipedia, but that sentence is an uninformative grammatical nightmare that happens to contain a lot of convincing chemical names.