... It is assumed that the opposition doesn't have physical access to your system or the target system. Rather the assumption is that the encryption is required any other system besides the origin and destination of the message. If you need to secure things so that your own system isn't compromised then you're basically fucked via the first rule of computer security...
Physical security. You either have that or kill yourself.
Doesn't address the quantum aspect of the query. Define the danger of quantum cracking?
Do you know how that is supposed to work? If you think your 256 bit key is going to hold against what that promises to be then maybe you should look that up.
That said, I haven't seen any practical evidence of it actually working. So maybe it doesn't matter.
Your sad dive into rudeness however is unfortunate. Why is your ego so small that when your obvious autism is revealed you have to lash out.
and here someone says "but MOOOOOM its hard!"... no it isn't.
How many gigs of communication do you need to secure per device? Lets presume that there are LEVELS of security that can be secured with varying levels of security.
Naturally it is impractical to secure everything with the one time pad type encryption. Which to be clear would be a very large file stored on the sender and receiver and the data being encrypted would use only a portion of that seed data to randomize the information you wanted secured. And any portion of the "pad" that was used would be blacklisted from future use. So what would I use with something like this? Well, how about using the one time pad to encrypt new encryption keys. Thus encrypt/decrypt keys, seeds, etc would be secured by one time pad. Transferring the new pad could be done physically if this is really high security thus bypassing networks that are demonstrably compromised enough that you want to encrypt your data over them.
One time pads are already used by the government for the highest level security. Nuclear launch codes for example are one time pad. A lot of the shoe leather and handshake intelligence networks run on one time pads.
There is no reason we can't translate this even more easily to the digital sphere than it is in the wink and pistol sphere. Let us say you have a file that contains something like 32 gigs of randomized "one time pad" data. Using 1:1 encryption that could encrypt 32 gigs of data you want to secure. And breaking it would be basically impossible. No repeating patterns. You need the one time pad data to decrypt. Period. Look at text messages from cell phones. If we WANT to be efficient with our data transmissions, we can be.
Let us say what we want to do is sync two databases over the internet and the data in these databases is very very sensitive. Now we could use the one time pad data sparingly... passing only some data through that system. Maybe just encrypt/decrypt data for some other encryption scheme. Possibly certain aspects of the data would be encrypted using one time pad. Maybe not all the data being synced has the same security clearance. The point is that if you need to be efficient about it, you can be.
And if you want encryption that can't be broken. One time pad.
Now I assume that isn't what they want. They want some fire and forget, cheap as dirt, flawless, idiot proof system they can slot into the system and stop thinking about this ever again.
There you go. And if you're going to be a twit about the last 99 dollars, consider that that's for the new model. The last model is cheaper because its the elder model and is quite able to do the job.
3rd, dust collection is something the user is supposed to manage with a dust buster. This is a hobbyist machine. That said, they have plans and attachments that provide that feature for very little if you want that.
4th, as to it being louder, it is not a 3d printer... it is a CNC machine. You want a quiet CNC machine? This complaint is autistic. The point is functionality. You want to make tiny plastic yoda heads? Do it. I was pointing out that CNC machines are able to make more useful things at the same price point and therefore are the correct path. Unless you want tiny plastic yoda heads. in which case, congrats... that is what you get.
All political boundaries are just lines on maps. What gives them meaning is that when you cross them there are consequences.
A line with no consequences is merely just a line as you say. But just as your neighbor would have a response if you decided to build on his property without permission... there are consequences for arbitrarily negating laws, precedent, and generally running roughshod over people.
Do it. You seem like a guy without a healthy respect for consequences.
Many of the wealth distinctions are the result of purchasing power parity adjustments that many people don't appear to understand.
People in various places get paid more but they often must pay more for everything almost in perfect proportion to how much more they are paid. Gasoline for example can cost 4 to 5 dollars in Los Angeles whilst costing 2 dollars or less in many other parts of the country. You'll find similar issues with home prices and various other things.
The net result is that the adjusted standard of living once you've factored for purchasing power is that there is frequently less of a distinction then you'd think.
What is more, discrepancies in funding is only relevant to the extent that funding is insufficient to meet local needs. In most cases... having factored for most variables... I'd love to see an argument for negating state powers, centralizing all state functions at the federal level, and justifying all of that on the basis of what can only be described as a collectivist redistributionist moral paradigm.
Look, I appreciate you mean well. But you're also presuming to rule people and tell them what they want. I'd respect your position a great deal more if you ASKED people what they want and accepted no for an answer. If you don't ask but rather TELL and don't listen to refusals... Then your position is ultimately tyranny disguised in patronizing paternalism.
Because justice should be different in New York than in Alaska? And yet both manage their police locally. Why have governors, state legislators, mayors, etc if you have no respect or regard for anything besides hyper centralized authority?
Education like many things has different challenges and objectives in different parts of the country because we have different economic realities etc. To presume you can manage all this from Washington DC is simply ignorance on your part.
Many things are managed locally. Education is one of them. Keep in mind that Washington DC, the city containing the geniuses you presume to put in charge of everyone's education has some of the worst schools in the country. Explain please where this organization gets the credibility to be taken seriously to manage the nation's education given that they demonstrably have failed to manage the education of the city under their nose?
Do not rise above your competence. If you can't even manage ONE city's education system, I have little patience listening to your opinions on how an entire country's education should be run.
Why have states at all if you want to argue to centralization of everything? Why have state governors, state legislators, mayors, locally elected police chiefs?
You ask for logic but you've not demonstrated that you understand the pros and cons of a federated system with limited autonomy. Given your obvious ignorance of a basic concept of US civics and your obvious arrogance... I am hesitant to waste my time with someone that is likely to not listen. Typically people that have retained that kind of arrogance and ignorance in the same skull are not especially reasonable. Just my experience.
Do you want to try again or did I figure you out off the bat?
IF your state wants it, then do it. If your state doesn't, then don't. I'm merely saying it shouldn't be federal and if it should be done... then don't drag the states that don't want it into it just because you do. That's it.
There are a few other examples... they're roughly in the same price range of the 3d printers that print plastic crap. And they are manageable by hobbyists.
for 1000 dollars I can buy a CNC machine that can make good parts that a person can use in their home right now without a lot of nonsense. The 3d printers generally can only make very small low quality plastic parts around that price point.
You want to make tiny yoda heads... buy the 3d printer that makes plastic yoda heads. Its not the future. That's a toy.
Now a proper 3d printer that can make more sophisticated parts is a different story but from what I've seen those are about 15k to 80k. Where as again, there are 1000 dollar CnC machines that can make furniture etc.
CNC machines more cheaply build higher quality parts given current technology. They can work with a wider range of materials. They are easier to maintain. They are just better.
Its not saying renewables produce more power but that more renewable capacity was added this year than non-renewable capacity. But the bulk of capacity remains non-renewable.
It said right here: "" But the agency expects renewablesâ(TM) share of power generation to rise to 28 per cent by 2021, when it predicts they will supply the equivalent of all the electricity generated today in the US and EU combined. "" So by 2021, they hope it will be up to 28 percent of total capacity. Thus... no, renewables are not the majority of power generation and the title is wrong.
They based their "research" on an interview in a climbing magazine.
it is also ironic that you'd say something about politics in the same breath that you're advocating the IPCC. Much of the IPCC is not authored by scientists. Its a political organization via the UN not a scientific organization. You'd know that if you knew anything. But you don't.
You're another tool that repeats the same stupid shit with no understanding of what he's talking about.
You're getting caught in a lie or a scandal or a fraud practically daily. And despite that all we get out of you is the same pretension to a functioning brain stem.
Keep in mind, you're the one that started the ad hominem game by talking about deniers and politics. If you want to talk issues, I'll crush you with facts. You likely don't have anything besides some cartoonish illustrations or some PDF links you didn't read.
What people like you get away with is shifting between an unjustified pretense of intellectual or moral superiority into fallacious ad hominem without pausing to back up anything. It works on people that don't know what this is...
If you want to make a stab at being rational or justifying any of that comical pretense you walk around with... try me. Otherwise... Burn.
Slashdot Mirror
... It is assumed that the opposition doesn't have physical access to your system or the target system. Rather the assumption is that the encryption is required any other system besides the origin and destination of the message. If you need to secure things so that your own system isn't compromised then you're basically fucked via the first rule of computer security...
Physical security. You either have that or kill yourself.
Doesn't address the quantum aspect of the query. Define the danger of quantum cracking?
Do you know how that is supposed to work? If you think your 256 bit key is going to hold against what that promises to be then maybe you should look that up.
That said, I haven't seen any practical evidence of it actually working. So maybe it doesn't matter.
Your sad dive into rudeness however is unfortunate. Why is your ego so small that when your obvious autism is revealed you have to lash out.
Calm down, dude. You're autistic. It's okay.
"NIST Asks Public For Help With Quantum-Proof Cryptography" ...
If you want unbreakable crypto... One time pad.
and here someone says "but MOOOOOM its hard!"... no it isn't.
How many gigs of communication do you need to secure per device? Lets presume that there are LEVELS of security that can be secured with varying levels of security.
Naturally it is impractical to secure everything with the one time pad type encryption. Which to be clear would be a very large file stored on the sender and receiver and the data being encrypted would use only a portion of that seed data to randomize the information you wanted secured. And any portion of the "pad" that was used would be blacklisted from future use. So what would I use with something like this? Well, how about using the one time pad to encrypt new encryption keys. Thus encrypt/decrypt keys, seeds, etc would be secured by one time pad. Transferring the new pad could be done physically if this is really high security thus bypassing networks that are demonstrably compromised enough that you want to encrypt your data over them.
One time pads are already used by the government for the highest level security. Nuclear launch codes for example are one time pad. A lot of the shoe leather and handshake intelligence networks run on one time pads.
There is no reason we can't translate this even more easily to the digital sphere than it is in the wink and pistol sphere. Let us say you have a file that contains something like 32 gigs of randomized "one time pad" data. Using 1:1 encryption that could encrypt 32 gigs of data you want to secure. And breaking it would be basically impossible. No repeating patterns. You need the one time pad data to decrypt. Period. Look at text messages from cell phones. If we WANT to be efficient with our data transmissions, we can be.
Let us say what we want to do is sync two databases over the internet and the data in these databases is very very sensitive. Now we could use the one time pad data sparingly... passing only some data through that system. Maybe just encrypt/decrypt data for some other encryption scheme. Possibly certain aspects of the data would be encrypted using one time pad. Maybe not all the data being synced has the same security clearance. The point is that if you need to be efficient about it, you can be.
And if you want encryption that can't be broken. One time pad.
Now I assume that isn't what they want. They want some fire and forget, cheap as dirt, flawless, idiot proof system they can slot into the system and stop thinking about this ever again.
That is a fantasy. I don't see that happening.
1st, don't be pedantic. We're talking about the general price range of a 3d printer.
2nd, https://shop.carbide3d.com/col...
There you go. And if you're going to be a twit about the last 99 dollars, consider that that's for the new model. The last model is cheaper because its the elder model and is quite able to do the job.
3rd, dust collection is something the user is supposed to manage with a dust buster. This is a hobbyist machine. That said, they have plans and attachments that provide that feature for very little if you want that.
4th, as to it being louder, it is not a 3d printer... it is a CNC machine. You want a quiet CNC machine? This complaint is autistic. The point is functionality. You want to make tiny plastic yoda heads? Do it. I was pointing out that CNC machines are able to make more useful things at the same price point and therefore are the correct path. Unless you want tiny plastic yoda heads. in which case, congrats... that is what you get.
All political boundaries are just lines on maps. What gives them meaning is that when you cross them there are consequences.
A line with no consequences is merely just a line as you say. But just as your neighbor would have a response if you decided to build on his property without permission... there are consequences for arbitrarily negating laws, precedent, and generally running roughshod over people.
Do it. You seem like a guy without a healthy respect for consequences.
Many of the wealth distinctions are the result of purchasing power parity adjustments that many people don't appear to understand.
People in various places get paid more but they often must pay more for everything almost in perfect proportion to how much more they are paid. Gasoline for example can cost 4 to 5 dollars in Los Angeles whilst costing 2 dollars or less in many other parts of the country. You'll find similar issues with home prices and various other things.
The net result is that the adjusted standard of living once you've factored for purchasing power is that there is frequently less of a distinction then you'd think.
What is more, discrepancies in funding is only relevant to the extent that funding is insufficient to meet local needs. In most cases... having factored for most variables... I'd love to see an argument for negating state powers, centralizing all state functions at the federal level, and justifying all of that on the basis of what can only be described as a collectivist redistributionist moral paradigm.
Look, I appreciate you mean well. But you're also presuming to rule people and tell them what they want. I'd respect your position a great deal more if you ASKED people what they want and accepted no for an answer. If you don't ask but rather TELL and don't listen to refusals... Then your position is ultimately tyranny disguised in patronizing paternalism.
Because justice should be different in New York than in Alaska? And yet both manage their police locally. Why have governors, state legislators, mayors, etc if you have no respect or regard for anything besides hyper centralized authority?
Education like many things has different challenges and objectives in different parts of the country because we have different economic realities etc. To presume you can manage all this from Washington DC is simply ignorance on your part.
Many things are managed locally. Education is one of them. Keep in mind that Washington DC, the city containing the geniuses you presume to put in charge of everyone's education has some of the worst schools in the country. Explain please where this organization gets the credibility to be taken seriously to manage the nation's education given that they demonstrably have failed to manage the education of the city under their nose?
Do not rise above your competence. If you can't even manage ONE city's education system, I have little patience listening to your opinions on how an entire country's education should be run.
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/i...
Why have states at all if you want to argue to centralization of everything? Why have state governors, state legislators, mayors, locally elected police chiefs?
You ask for logic but you've not demonstrated that you understand the pros and cons of a federated system with limited autonomy. Given your obvious ignorance of a basic concept of US civics and your obvious arrogance... I am hesitant to waste my time with someone that is likely to not listen. Typically people that have retained that kind of arrogance and ignorance in the same skull are not especially reasonable. Just my experience.
Do you want to try again or did I figure you out off the bat?
IF your state wants it, then do it. If your state doesn't, then don't. I'm merely saying it shouldn't be federal and if it should be done... then don't drag the states that don't want it into it just because you do. That's it.
These sorts of programs should not be Federal.
https://www.inventables.com/te...
There are a few other examples... they're roughly in the same price range of the 3d printers that print plastic crap. And they are manageable by hobbyists.
for 1000 dollars I can buy a CNC machine that can make good parts that a person can use in their home right now without a lot of nonsense. The 3d printers generally can only make very small low quality plastic parts around that price point.
You want to make tiny yoda heads... buy the 3d printer that makes plastic yoda heads. Its not the future. That's a toy.
Now a proper 3d printer that can make more sophisticated parts is a different story but from what I've seen those are about 15k to 80k. Where as again, there are 1000 dollar CnC machines that can make furniture etc.
If I had to choose one of the two... I would be able to do that... and if X isn't doing it for people, they might consider Y.
CNC machines more cheaply build higher quality parts given current technology. They can work with a wider range of materials. They are easier to maintain. They are just better.
... to shoot you in the face with it.
The issue is not whether they're script kiddies or not but that the code worked. And it shouldn't. But it does. Correct the situation.
You've spent more time whining that it would have taken to just type the man's name in and the claim. It would have come right up.
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It also limits its predictions to the US and Europe mostly... Not the world.
Look, you want to play pretend with statistics, go play make believe. I'm not entertained by that sort of thing. It doesn't keep the lights on.
Its not saying renewables produce more power but that more renewable capacity was added this year than non-renewable capacity. But the bulk of capacity remains non-renewable.
It said right here:
""
But the agency expects renewablesâ(TM) share of power generation to rise to 28 per cent by 2021, when it predicts they will supply the equivalent of all the electricity generated today in the US and EU combined.
""
So by 2021, they hope it will be up to 28 percent of total capacity. Thus... no, renewables are not the majority of power generation and the title is wrong.
I didn't say there was one, shit for brains. I was making it clear who I was referring to.
Autism is not a rebuttal.
I did respond. You're too fucking stupid to get it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
He claimed it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Don't talk to me until you've consumed at least 20 pounds of broken glass.
So the IPCC is the prime source of evidence we should go with and other sources are not acceptable?
Okay. Prepare to dance.
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
They based their "research" on an interview in a climbing magazine.
it is also ironic that you'd say something about politics in the same breath that you're advocating the IPCC. Much of the IPCC is not authored by scientists. Its a political organization via the UN not a scientific organization. You'd know that if you knew anything. But you don't.
You're another tool that repeats the same stupid shit with no understanding of what he's talking about.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
You're getting caught in a lie or a scandal or a fraud practically daily. And despite that all we get out of you is the same pretension to a functioning brain stem.
Keep in mind, you're the one that started the ad hominem game by talking about deniers and politics. If you want to talk issues, I'll crush you with facts. You likely don't have anything besides some cartoonish illustrations or some PDF links you didn't read.
But if you want to play the ad hominem game... then flame on.
https://youtu.be/Ae04r1EQOKk?t...
What people like you get away with is shifting between an unjustified pretense of intellectual or moral superiority into fallacious ad hominem without pausing to back up anything. It works on people that don't know what this is...
If you want to make a stab at being rational or justifying any of that comical pretense you walk around with... try me. Otherwise... Burn.