Oh, sure, there are tons of theoretical collisions. But nobody will generate even a tiny fraction of those possible 32-byte files, so the practical risk of collision is near zero.
There is still considerable debate about whether millimeter wave emissions can damage DNA.
In the sense that there's "debate" over whether there are ill health effects from 802.11 devices, yes. There's been a couple of papers studying possible DNA damage in the THz range, which is a shorter wavelength than mm-wave scanners use.
Not all damage is from ionization.
Obviously not. Microwaves can destroy DNA thermally if you give them long enough, after all. At the energies used in these scanners, though, all of the damage is from ionization.
We expose people to X-rays for non-medical reasons all the time, just not in very large quantities. Like stepping outside.
Therac-25 illustrates that design failures can be fatal. While that could be true in an X-ray scanner (it would take about 5 minutes to expose you to a dangerous, not lethal, amount of radiation in such a scanner), it's also true in, for example, the airplane you're about to get on.
Millimeter-wave scanners are non-ionizing radiation (in not-so-small quantities). Backscatter X-ray scanners are ionizing radiation, though in very small quantities.
You mean if you have secrets that might be worth using extralegal methods of obtaining that you also want to share with others when you die. Otherwise you don't need to include that password.
Heat capacity? As in thermodynamic heat capacity? Either you are incorrectly using that term, or you don't understand what a greenhouse gas is.
Separately, the problem with water is that it cannot easily be removed from the atmosphere, as it's in a dynamic equilibrium with non-atmospheric water. On the other hand, the nice thing about water is that it cannot be easily added to the atmosphere, for the same reason.
You can certainly do that. I just don't think it's easy to set up. There have been security papers, even, where people have configured Linux servers where the TPM on the server could prove to a client that the server's boot chain and software stack are verified. (Efficient? No.)
Why would a trusted computing architecture use "has a code signing cert issued by a CA" as a rule? They're cheap and they only provide accountability, not security. That rule isn't even sufficient for Windows drivers -- you need a cert issued by one of the CAs that's been counter-signed by Microsoft.
I think it's really a fairly minor difference -- thimerosal doesn't contain much mercury at all (compared to common environmental sources), but the short answer is this: Thimerosal is an effective preservative. A lot of vaccines are fairly unstable -- they require fine environmental control and still have limited shelf life. As a result, some reasonable fraction of the vaccines that are given are actually not fully effective and can fail to grant resistance. Better preservatives make this a significantly less likely outcome. That's all the tradeoff is -- a fairly non-serious "less likely to go bad" versus a trivial exposure to mercury.
For that matter, it's an independently-funded study using mostly people outside the field -- so it's not diverting funds away from new research -- and apparently used more rigorous statistical treatments. What's not to like?
A good argument is a little more complicated than that (how strong of a greenhouse gas is CO2?), but Arrhenius was able to get in the right ballpark a hundred years ago using painfully simple models.
Your general point is true, but your information about tuna and thimerosal is false. The mercury in tuna is methyl mercury, which is one of the less-pleasant organic mercuries. Organic mercury is quite bad compared to elemental mercury. The mercury exposure limits I'm referring to are actually for methyl mercury, since it's the common and dangerous organic mercury. Thimerosal breaks down in the body to ethyl mercury. There are not sufficient studies on ethyl mercury to determine its impact, but the rule of thumb is that ethyl mercury should be no worse than methyl mercury, so it's reasonable to apply the methyl mercury limits.
It could actually be that thimerosal is much less bad for you than an "equivalent" amount of tuna, but it's a reasonable upper limit. (Particularly since those limits are for chronic exposure and thus are extremely low.)
Not really. A flu shot with Thimerosal is worth something like a few meals' worth of tuna. (I think it uses up a week's worth of mercury exposure limit.) A flu shot without Thimerosal is not only more difficult to store and transport, it's more likely to fail to give you resistance to the flu.
NOAA and FEMA are also defense. We've just gone long enough without losing half our fleet to an unexpected storm or the looting and burning of hordes displaced by a natural disaster that we've forgotten the national security aspects of them.
Only if you misuse the definition of "fiat". You're describing money without intrinsic value. Fiat currency is currency that has value as a result of law.
Slashdot Mirror
You get a good name when you become accepted enough to become a standard.
For example, Rijndael and AES.
Oh, sure, there are tons of theoretical collisions. But nobody will generate even a tiny fraction of those possible 32-byte files, so the practical risk of collision is near zero.
It's SHA-256, so it's well-distributed.
There is still considerable debate about whether millimeter wave emissions can damage DNA.
In the sense that there's "debate" over whether there are ill health effects from 802.11 devices, yes. There's been a couple of papers studying possible DNA damage in the THz range, which is a shorter wavelength than mm-wave scanners use.
Not all damage is from ionization.
Obviously not. Microwaves can destroy DNA thermally if you give them long enough, after all. At the energies used in these scanners, though, all of the damage is from ionization.
No, and yes.
Last I checked, the development kit is free. An account that can publish apps is $100/year.
We expose people to X-rays for non-medical reasons all the time, just not in very large quantities. Like stepping outside.
Therac-25 illustrates that design failures can be fatal. While that could be true in an X-ray scanner (it would take about 5 minutes to expose you to a dangerous, not lethal, amount of radiation in such a scanner), it's also true in, for example, the airplane you're about to get on.
Millimeter-wave scanners are non-ionizing radiation (in not-so-small quantities). Backscatter X-ray scanners are ionizing radiation, though in very small quantities.
You mean if you have secrets that might be worth using extralegal methods of obtaining that you also want to share with others when you die. Otherwise you don't need to include that password.
Heat capacity? As in thermodynamic heat capacity? Either you are incorrectly using that term, or you don't understand what a greenhouse gas is.
Separately, the problem with water is that it cannot easily be removed from the atmosphere, as it's in a dynamic equilibrium with non-atmospheric water. On the other hand, the nice thing about water is that it cannot be easily added to the atmosphere, for the same reason.
You can certainly do that. I just don't think it's easy to set up. There have been security papers, even, where people have configured Linux servers where the TPM on the server could prove to a client that the server's boot chain and software stack are verified. (Efficient? No.)
Why would a trusted computing architecture use "has a code signing cert issued by a CA" as a rule? They're cheap and they only provide accountability, not security. That rule isn't even sufficient for Windows drivers -- you need a cert issued by one of the CAs that's been counter-signed by Microsoft.
I think it's really a fairly minor difference -- thimerosal doesn't contain much mercury at all (compared to common environmental sources), but the short answer is this: Thimerosal is an effective preservative. A lot of vaccines are fairly unstable -- they require fine environmental control and still have limited shelf life. As a result, some reasonable fraction of the vaccines that are given are actually not fully effective and can fail to grant resistance. Better preservatives make this a significantly less likely outcome. That's all the tradeoff is -- a fairly non-serious "less likely to go bad" versus a trivial exposure to mercury.
For that matter, it's an independently-funded study using mostly people outside the field -- so it's not diverting funds away from new research -- and apparently used more rigorous statistical treatments. What's not to like?
A good argument is a little more complicated than that (how strong of a greenhouse gas is CO2?), but Arrhenius was able to get in the right ballpark a hundred years ago using painfully simple models.
By the same logic, everyone dies eventually, so nobody will mind if I shoot you now.
There's no safe dose.
Are you a biochemist, or do you have a reference for that? Most chemicals, even toxic bio-accumulative ones, have safe doses.
and they detected not only high levels of Alu, but high levels of mercury as well.
That's deceptive. Mercury-contaminated water can easily have many orders of magnitude more mercury than fish or vaccines.
Your general point is true, but your information about tuna and thimerosal is false. The mercury in tuna is methyl mercury, which is one of the less-pleasant organic mercuries. Organic mercury is quite bad compared to elemental mercury. The mercury exposure limits I'm referring to are actually for methyl mercury, since it's the common and dangerous organic mercury. Thimerosal breaks down in the body to ethyl mercury. There are not sufficient studies on ethyl mercury to determine its impact, but the rule of thumb is that ethyl mercury should be no worse than methyl mercury, so it's reasonable to apply the methyl mercury limits.
It could actually be that thimerosal is much less bad for you than an "equivalent" amount of tuna, but it's a reasonable upper limit. (Particularly since those limits are for chronic exposure and thus are extremely low.)
Not really. A flu shot with Thimerosal is worth something like a few meals' worth of tuna. (I think it uses up a week's worth of mercury exposure limit.) A flu shot without Thimerosal is not only more difficult to store and transport, it's more likely to fail to give you resistance to the flu.
In the U.S., among common vaccines, it's only present in one of the forms of flu vaccine.
NOAA and FEMA are also defense. We've just gone long enough without losing half our fleet to an unexpected storm or the looting and burning of hordes displaced by a natural disaster that we've forgotten the national security aspects of them.
Well, of course they'll charge you for watching the webcam. Come to think of it, that will probably be their chief export.
Actually, you can get a pretty good idea of how much funding the DoD gets, even for secret projects -- just not what projects it goes to.
I hadn't heard that Netflix had replaced the S&P.
Only if you misuse the definition of "fiat". You're describing money without intrinsic value. Fiat currency is currency that has value as a result of law.
The "token" in this case is the fraction of the public blockchain needed to validate a proposed bitcoin exchange.