The benefit is ease of use for people who have no idea what a URL is. They just look up there and see, "yes, this is definitely my bank's website," instead of "holy shit what does long string of symbols that mean."
Why go through all that trouble when a PRP is indistinguishable from a PRF except with negligible probability... If you find two inputs that map to the same block with a PRF that is equivalent to just guessing the encryption key.
They will not be powering the acceleration directly though, they will be charging batteries which power an electric drivetrain. That means you get some extra charge while you are sitting at a red light and you use more when accelerating to highway speed.
The NIH disagrees with you, and I would trust them a little more than a random internet commenter. Oh and the fact that I have been getting B12 from supplements for years with no ill effect, thanks.
Fat and carbs, carbs and fat. We excel at producing them and we can do it for cents per ton. Ain't that easy for protein.
I'm confused, have you not heard of soy beans? They are one of the cheapest crops to grow, flourish in many climates, and are almost exactly 1/3 carbs, 1/3 protein and 1/3 fat. When you process it into tofu it even loses all the carbs and ends up being about 70% protein. Oh and it's cheap and shelf-stable to boot. Too bad in the US it is viewed as a hippy food for wimps.
You are assuming that there is some point where people will abruptly stop buying your product forever, which doesn't make any sense. You will eventually sell them, whether it be at reduced price or just by waiting. That stock has value. I really am not sure what your idea of a modern business is. There are certainly businesses that do not produce tangible goods which would not fit that model, but they purposefully do not allow their margins to be so low for precisely the reason that you can never predict exactly how many you will sell.
First of all, your link doesn't say anything about aggression. Second, it proves my own point about conditioning at the end with this little gem: "My hypothesis is that we could possibly erase this difference if we pushed girls out into the exploratory mode."
10% of revenue or less is the profit margin for a great many companies. I don't think you get how capitalism works.
I don't think you understand how businesses work. I could hire a subpar advertising team that causes me to sell 10% less of my product. I have 10% less revenue. That doesn't mean that I make no profit if my margin is 10%, because I won't have to make as many units. I will lose more than 10% of my profit because of fixed costs, but not even close to all of it.
It's really hard to prove that you were discriminated against unless there is a written record of the employer basically saying, "I don't want to hire her because she's a woman." Lets also not pretend that you can only be successful by hiring the absolutely best candidate. If all you want to do is hire white males, and it costs you 10% of your revenue, then maybe that is worth it to you because you are a bigoted asshole.
We do complain about there not being enough male teachers. There are numerous initiatives and even *gasp* priority hiring programs for men in primary education. Next derail please?
I never said that women and men are exactly the same physically. No one can deny that men are generally stronger than women. I was referring socially conditioned behavior and attitudes.
Yeah, too bad that doesn't happen. And lets be honest here, the difference we are talking about between the best employee and the best employee that is acceptable according to your prejudices is very small. You could hire only white men and be very successful. Maybe you would make 10% more revenue if you had a more diverse workforce, but who cares, you're a racist asshole so that 10% revenue is worth it to you not to have to employee any minorities. Don't pretend that the free market would magically fix the problem.
I am sure you don't have any children. If you do, you would have noticed that girls will play with dolls without any prompting, and boys will run around an be loud without any prompting either.
Just because that is your experience doesn't make it a general truth. I didn't say that the parents were necessarily encouraging it, although many do. It is impossible to avoid all the gendered advertising and media which is mostly what I'm talking about.
If they choose an inferior candidate their company is stuck with the consequences.
You must be living in a different reality than me. Companies are never stuck with the consequences of their actions, banks can lose billions and just get it reimbursed or do some bookkeeping magic to keep their executives fat and rich.
You can't pretend that is some kind of biological difference though. It is entirely socially constructed, the way we teach little girls to be caregivers and quiet little angels while we let boys run around playing loud, violent games. If it means that women are now disadvantaged in the job market, then we should either 1) control for that and make sure that companies hire women anyway or 2) change the way that we condition girls so that they are more useful in the workforce.
How can you ensure that the job is going to the best candidate though? If you agree that women should not be unfairly disadvantaged, how can you enforce that except by equality of outcomes?
It's not a pain financially if your degree is in a STEM field. Not only do you not have to pay tuition, but you get paid to pursue a PhD, because graduate students actually do most of the grunt work for the research which makes the big bucks. It's not a ton of money, but it is more than enough to live comfortably.
That's not really the point though, since you can always encrypt traffic using TLS. The point of Tor is to hide the end point you are communicating with from someone who controls the network that your computer is on, like a decentralized VPN. You could always gather traffic on both ends (client side and end point/exit node, called an intersection attack), but it is very unlikely that one party will have control of two separate networks like that. With this attack, you don't actually need control of the other end since you can just query the exit nodes directly and they will leak traffic information to you.
The point is that, if you know the IP address of the exit node, you can use the heartbleed bug to examine it's outgoing traffic even if you don't have control of the network the exit node is on. This makes intersection attacks much easier because you only need to have data from one end. If I control a network where I see some Tor users, all I have to do is use this exploit on exit nodes until I see outgoing traffic that matches the traffic I see on my own network. I can then link that data to clients on my network and Tor is defeated.
This attack is always possible if you control both the client's network and the end point they are communicating with (or some piece of the network between the exit node and the end point), but with this attack you don't need to actually control any part of the network on the exit side because you can just query the exit nodes directly and they will tell you themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
The benefit is ease of use for people who have no idea what a URL is. They just look up there and see, "yes, this is definitely my bank's website," instead of "holy shit what does long string of symbols that mean."
Why go through all that trouble when a PRP is indistinguishable from a PRF except with negligible probability... If you find two inputs that map to the same block with a PRF that is equivalent to just guessing the encryption key.
The NSA actually recommends ECC exclusively for public key encryption as part of its suite B, and not RSA. Make of that what you will.
They will not be powering the acceleration directly though, they will be charging batteries which power an electric drivetrain. That means you get some extra charge while you are sitting at a red light and you use more when accelerating to highway speed.
The NIH disagrees with you, and I would trust them a little more than a random internet commenter. Oh and the fact that I have been getting B12 from supplements for years with no ill effect, thanks.
Fat and carbs, carbs and fat. We excel at producing them and we can do it for cents per ton. Ain't that easy for protein.
I'm confused, have you not heard of soy beans? They are one of the cheapest crops to grow, flourish in many climates, and are almost exactly 1/3 carbs, 1/3 protein and 1/3 fat. When you process it into tofu it even loses all the carbs and ends up being about 70% protein. Oh and it's cheap and shelf-stable to boot. Too bad in the US it is viewed as a hippy food for wimps.
No, you have to read carefully. He said per calorie.
Wow, it sure is a good thing we have known how to synthesize it for decades and you can buy a 200 count at the pharmacy for $10.
The login does use SSL.
You are assuming that there is some point where people will abruptly stop buying your product forever, which doesn't make any sense. You will eventually sell them, whether it be at reduced price or just by waiting. That stock has value. I really am not sure what your idea of a modern business is. There are certainly businesses that do not produce tangible goods which would not fit that model, but they purposefully do not allow their margins to be so low for precisely the reason that you can never predict exactly how many you will sell.
First of all, your link doesn't say anything about aggression. Second, it proves my own point about conditioning at the end with this little gem: "My hypothesis is that we could possibly erase this difference if we pushed girls out into the exploratory mode."
10% of revenue or less is the profit margin for a great many companies. I don't think you get how capitalism works.
I don't think you understand how businesses work. I could hire a subpar advertising team that causes me to sell 10% less of my product. I have 10% less revenue. That doesn't mean that I make no profit if my margin is 10%, because I won't have to make as many units. I will lose more than 10% of my profit because of fixed costs, but not even close to all of it.
It's really hard to prove that you were discriminated against unless there is a written record of the employer basically saying, "I don't want to hire her because she's a woman." Lets also not pretend that you can only be successful by hiring the absolutely best candidate. If all you want to do is hire white males, and it costs you 10% of your revenue, then maybe that is worth it to you because you are a bigoted asshole.
We do complain about there not being enough male teachers. There are numerous initiatives and even *gasp* priority hiring programs for men in primary education. Next derail please?
Good thing we're not talking about low level IT workers... nice derail.
I never said that women and men are exactly the same physically. No one can deny that men are generally stronger than women. I was referring socially conditioned behavior and attitudes.
Yeah, too bad that doesn't happen. And lets be honest here, the difference we are talking about between the best employee and the best employee that is acceptable according to your prejudices is very small. You could hire only white men and be very successful. Maybe you would make 10% more revenue if you had a more diverse workforce, but who cares, you're a racist asshole so that 10% revenue is worth it to you not to have to employee any minorities. Don't pretend that the free market would magically fix the problem.
I am sure you don't have any children. If you do, you would have noticed that girls will play with dolls without any prompting, and boys will run around an be loud without any prompting either.
Just because that is your experience doesn't make it a general truth. I didn't say that the parents were necessarily encouraging it, although many do. It is impossible to avoid all the gendered advertising and media which is mostly what I'm talking about.
If they choose an inferior candidate their company is stuck with the consequences.
You must be living in a different reality than me. Companies are never stuck with the consequences of their actions, banks can lose billions and just get it reimbursed or do some bookkeeping magic to keep their executives fat and rich.
Most women are not that aggressive. Most men are.
You can't pretend that is some kind of biological difference though. It is entirely socially constructed, the way we teach little girls to be caregivers and quiet little angels while we let boys run around playing loud, violent games. If it means that women are now disadvantaged in the job market, then we should either 1) control for that and make sure that companies hire women anyway or 2) change the way that we condition girls so that they are more useful in the workforce.
How can you ensure that the job is going to the best candidate though? If you agree that women should not be unfairly disadvantaged, how can you enforce that except by equality of outcomes?
It's not a pain financially if your degree is in a STEM field. Not only do you not have to pay tuition, but you get paid to pursue a PhD, because graduate students actually do most of the grunt work for the research which makes the big bucks. It's not a ton of money, but it is more than enough to live comfortably.
What does that have to do with anything? You could still learn the destination address, which is what Tor is trying to hide.
That's not really the point though, since you can always encrypt traffic using TLS. The point of Tor is to hide the end point you are communicating with from someone who controls the network that your computer is on, like a decentralized VPN. You could always gather traffic on both ends (client side and end point/exit node, called an intersection attack), but it is very unlikely that one party will have control of two separate networks like that. With this attack, you don't actually need control of the other end since you can just query the exit nodes directly and they will leak traffic information to you.
The point is that, if you know the IP address of the exit node, you can use the heartbleed bug to examine it's outgoing traffic even if you don't have control of the network the exit node is on. This makes intersection attacks much easier because you only need to have data from one end. If I control a network where I see some Tor users, all I have to do is use this exploit on exit nodes until I see outgoing traffic that matches the traffic I see on my own network. I can then link that data to clients on my network and Tor is defeated. This attack is always possible if you control both the client's network and the end point they are communicating with (or some piece of the network between the exit node and the end point), but with this attack you don't need to actually control any part of the network on the exit side because you can just query the exit nodes directly and they will tell you themselves.