If you can come up with a better distributed protocol for a distributed ledger where none of the parties trust one another, let's hear it. The current state of the art for that kind of thing consumes a lot of power, but not more than other less trustworthy systems.
FWIW, Proof of stake (vs proof of work) is the leading candidate for such a protocol. However, the wart on Proof of stake systems is they need complicated protocols to establish consensus in the face of adversaries that want to fork the chain (since there is nothing like work/energy limiting an adversary working on multiple forks).
Funny.
I have no ads anywhere other than in browser on sites that have them. Maybe it is because I choose decent apps and pay for them. Instead of downloading every piece of shit freeware on the face of the planet and then complaining about it.
If your phone vendor "accidentally" put ads into their stock keyboard app... I guess you need to amend that to choosing decent phone vendors...
THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
Tender is meant to extinguish a *debt*, it doesn't necessarily mean for *payment*. There is a subtle distinction between the two. If someone is essentially offering you "credit" and you settle at the end (e.g. going out to a meal in a restaurant, or a taxi ride, or paying your taxes), you technically incur a debt and then later extinguish that debt with payment which they need to accept "cash" as legal tender. For example, it isn't legal for a restaurant to require you to wash dishes, or give them your fancy shoes the owner has been eyeing to extinguish your tab of $250 (although it is of course allowed if both parties agree), if you can simply scrape up and tender them the $250 they must accept this as tender for retiring the debt (if instead you decide to dine and dash you technically still owe the debt even though it is essentially impossible for them to collect).
However, if the exchange is virtually simultaneous payment (e.g, paying for a meal in a quick serve restaurant, or pre-paying fixed priced for transit), no debt is created, so they can generally choose to accept whatever form of payment that is allowed by local laws for their goods or services.
Never understood how apartment and rent can be required to be non-cash payment.
In this case it is part of a *contract*, not a debt. In your lease, you agreed in advance to not pay your rent in cash (probably in the fine print you didn't read).
Another issue is how do I pay my neighbor kid to mow my lawn with a credit card?
Paypal or some other peer-to-peer payment service...
Another issue is that I simply may not want Visa, and via third party records, the government, know exactly what I'm spending on and how frequently. The phrase "None of your business" comes to mind if for no other reason that it is, after all, none of their damned business.
Although I agree with this sentiment, unfortunately, the tide is about to wash over us in this position...
May I ask where you are? Certainly with the business banking terms we typically see here in the UK, the fees heavily favour electronic transactions to the point that just putting cash into the bank or taking it out would be in the same range as typical card payment fees and the like. There are other accounts with lower fees for cash-based businesses, but they charge much higher fees for the electronic stuff.
FWIW, the merchant card transaction fees in the US are dominated by "interchange-fees" for cards categorized as reward cards (e.g, the 2% cash-back or airline miles). If there were no reward cards, the merchant fees are very similar to the cash handling overhead.
Of course someone needs to pay for those cash-back and rewards bonuses and it isn't the card issuers... There are some payment processors that "hide" this interchange fee variance (e.g., square), but they simply just gross-it-up into their merchant-markup (e.g., Square charges ~2.75% flat where the underlying wholesale interchange rate varies from 2.4% for visa signature preferred down to 1.43% for traditional cards for similar merchant categories).
The merchant agreements require merchants accept all logo'ed payments so every time a merchant without a flat merchant fee accept a rewards card, they are in fact slightly punished for accepting a rewards card. The "theory" of why that is supposed to be a good thing is that rewards cards holders tend to be bigger spenders (which may be true in aggregate, but perhaps not to the specific merchant). Merchants that suffer from this fee variance to hate this (much like they often rail against American express card 2.89% merchant fee and might ask you to pay with any card but AMEX even though that is prohibited by the merchant agreement with AMEX), but they are pretty much powerless to stop the Visa/MC card issuers from foisting this rewards "tax" on them.
going away, my current credit cards won't leave an imprint
This is Visa's official stance on this...
U.S. merchants who work in the face-to-face sales environment may include CVV2 in the authorization request for U.S. domestic key-entered transactions in lieu of taking a manual card imprint. The CVV2 with Magnetic-Stripe Failures process is applicable to all card products when the magnetic-stripe fails at the point of sale (e.g., embossed cards, unembossed cards, vertical cards and cards with customized designs).
If an unembossed card will not swipe and the chip cannot be read, you should ask for another form of payment. Do not manually key enter unembossed cards (unless you participate in the CVV2 with Magnetic-Stripe Failures process), or write the account number on a paper draft. A marked paper draft will not protect a merchant against chargebacks.
Of course, if you can't call in to get an authorization (e.g., power out), you are SOL...
Maria Hellberg, a judge at the court, said that bankruptcy applications can be made by mailing a signed declaration of insolvency. The signature doesn't have to be notarized and there is no fee to file the application.
I suspect that this will all be changing shortly;^)
No not technically. Did particle A starting in position X end up at position Y? Was any information transferred or able to be transferred? Is faster than light communication possible? The answer to all these are no. Describing entanglement with teleportation is dumb.
Actually, quantum information was transferred. Of course there wasn't faster than light communication as quantum teleportation relies on entanglement *and* a classical communication channel.
For each qubit of information that wants to be sent, one of a pair of entangled photons needs to be conveyed to the destination (which can be done at nearly lightspeed for photons in free-space). After this is conveyance is done, then anytime later, a qubit from a third photon can be "teleported" to the destination by use of a conventional communication channel (which obviously isn't faster than light speed).
The way this works is you jointly measure the 3rd photon and your local singleton of the previously entangled photon which yields one of 4 joint states. This doesn't tell you the original state of the 3rd photon, only the joint state relative to the entangled photon, (but in the process collapses the state of these photons).
You then send this description of the measurement (basically two bits of information) across a classical channel to the destination (at whatever speed you want).
To replicate the quantum state at the destination, you manipulate the phase of the previously conveyed/entangled photon (without measuring it) according to on the results of the relative (2-bit) state description. After this manipulation, this previously conveyed entangled-photon has a non-collapsed replicated quantum state of the original 3rd photon, but the state was transmitted/teleported to its destination over a classical channel.
You can read the details from their paper paper. Over 32 days, they managed 911 four-photon events and achieved an estimated accuracy of about 80% of conveying the quantum state (the theoretical limit accuracy of a conventional channel was about 66% w/o using information obtained using measurements of previously conveyed entangled photons).
Remember you can't simply pre-measure a quantum state w/o collapsing it to determine the accuracy rate, so accuracy was determined statistically using two entangled pairs (which is why they needed to create a four-photon-event and for which it was hard to create a process for).
Notes the role of commercial strategies, such as product leasing, in the design of durable products, whereby leasing firms retain ownership of the leased units and have an incentive to remarket products and to invest in designing more durable products, resulting in a lower volume of new production and disposal products;... Highlights that the shift towards business models such as ‘products as services’ has the potential to improve the sustainability of production and consumption patterns.
Part of the report seems to dwell on the potential benefits of a shift away from people actually owning any products...
We've seen how this works out on the software side of things...
oh man, I almost got taken in by this one and if so I'd be assigned the Whoosh Co. I'm thinking why would anyone buy a car of any sort in a congested place like HK.
Reminds me of one time when I visited my grandparents in HK as a kid (in the mid 1970's). He had use car from his job and wanted to drive us to go to dinner. Took about 20-mins and he dropped us off in front of the restaurant. With no place to park, he drove back to the house and walked back to the restaurant and joined us about 20-minutes later.
Even the airport is squeezed, there's many videos that landing a typical airliner is action and adventure (means need plenty of barf bags).
That was the old Kai Tak airport's infamous "checkerboard" approach. The new HKG international airport's over-water approach is pretty bog standard and relatively boring...
The correct answer is that it's a trick question. You need A, C & D at least.
Although, if I had to pick only one, it's C. With enough capital, you can afford to buy the rest.
Hell, with enough capital you can prop the thing up long enough to take it public, then dump it on the market and walk away with millions.
That's what most startup companies do when they realize they don't have customers. The startups that actually have customers are too busy trying to mortgage their future to keep their customers and they get way less capital than they generally need.
When you want something, getting it is easy. When you need something you'll pay through the nose to get it.
Sorry, no. The attack described is on the GMR-2 stream cipher itself, not the key exchange. Because of a weakness in the key schedule of the cipher, and the underlying structure of the encrypted data frame related to the key schedule, they can actually recover the key directly from they encrypted data frame ignoring the session key exchange entirely.
Uhmmm... that would be the point of using DHKE or one its variants, so that you *CAN'T* recover the unencrypted data without first intercepting the key exchange itself that occurs at the beginning of the communication. This is quite trivially susceptible to MitM attacks without adding authentication steps to the process, but with wireless communication, setting up a man-in-the-middle to intercept the communication is not feasible, so authentication is moot.
I think you are perhaps missing the point. They can recover the key from the encrypted data using this attack. They don't need to attack the key exchange to make this attack work so anything making the key exchange "better" is pointless. The weakness is apparently in the GMR-2 stream cipher itself, so they *CAN* recover the unencrypted data w/o needing to intercept the key exchange or the session information.
Some variant of Diffie-Helman key exchange would probably do quite nicely...
Sorry, no. The attack described is on the GMR-2 stream cipher itself, not the key exchange. Because of a weakness in the key schedule of the cipher, and the underlying structure of the encrypted data frame related to the key schedule, they can actually recover the key directly from they encrypted data frame ignoring the session key exchange entirely.
The fact that they are using some crappy secret stream cipher to sat-phones is a testament to how little research has gone into good stream ciphers (vs creating block ciphers like AES). Although we also shouldn't be too smug about AES either. In a similar vein, a weakness in AES block cipher key schedule was not detected until many years later made AES-256 less secure than its 2^256 key-space would indicate (in fact because of this weakness, AES-256 may be even less secure than AES-192). And AES is/was a heavily researched block cipher, not a "secret" satellite phone cipher.
H1-B is not a good visa for competing with tech talent. Now, I have certainly worked with some very bright people, even PhDs, who are here on H1-Bs. But, I've also worked with slightly shrewder PhDs who have negotiated to get O-1 visas (not that difficult if you have a PhD in an in demand field). It seems to me that the problem isn't the immigrants, it's the visa. Change the visa, kick out the outsourcing mills and indentured servants, keep the high-tech talent and give them a green card. That's a solution that puts America first.
H1B is only a problem if you are from India or China. From other countries, it's a very short step to a Green Card, but because of the 7% per-country limit on Green cards, coming from India or China is generally a problem.
For example, the green card queue for India is so backlogged that they are only allowing EB-2 applications from July 22, 2008 now (China isn't much better at March 22, 2013). Every other country is "current" meaning that you can immediately apply for a EB-2 green card after receiving your H1B (of course because of bureaucracy, it takes anywhere from 6-months to a year to actually get your Green Card after applying but there's no feasible way to change a government bureaucracy).
Note that the 7% per-country limit includes both employment-based, family-based, and diversity(lottery)-based applicants, so even though there are about a million green cards issued per year, the fact that a disproportionate number apply from India and China, people wishing to immigrate to the US are "forced" to use the H1B as a stop-gap (something it wasn't really designed to be used for).
Some are lobbying to change the 7% rule, but there's a bunch of inertia in that number. Limits have been part of US immigration rules since the 1920's and was a compromise between those that wanted no national origin limits and those that favored a discriminatory 3% rule that was in effect after WWI.
I know several tech people that have left Canada to work for companies like Google and Epic games and other big tech firms. Even if this program merely stems the flow or evens out the egress, it may be a win.
Most of the folks I know that have left Canada did it for higher wages and more opportunity. I suppose Canada can attempt to backfill with immigrants from other nations, but I suspect in the best case all it will do is create a "discount" Silicon Valley (similar to India, but which isn't 12.5 timezones away).
A better strategy would be for Canada figure out how to attract more investment money, not discount employees to prevent their current brain-drain (and might accelerate their current problems). Actual investment (and tax incentives) is how Canada advanced their movie industry. The Canadian movie industry was able to take significant business away from Hollywood. Canada didn't simply open the doors to discount actors and fast track immigration and hope for the best...
or too many folks don't follow the wishes/rules their society lays out for distribution of resources (e.g., Italy, Greece)...
Everyone keeps blaming the poor who don't have any money and don't make any rules, instead of the rich who have all the money and make all the rules that allow them to amass it. This is a lot of crap. Every one of these governments knows who has the money, and what they are doing to get it, and usually what they are doing with it, but they don't go after them because of corruption. That's true whether you're talking about Greece or you're talking about the USA.
FWIW, nowhere did I blame the "poor" for tax evasion in Greece. For example, I doubt the poor are responsible for the estimated €20B in swiss bank accounts owned by Greek citizens, and the poor are probably a small fraction of the estimated 15,000 individuals that owe €37B in back taxes to the government...
So government doesn't help the situation at all? What the hell am I paying taxes for?!
Don't ask a question you don't want to hear the answer to....;^)
You are simply paying taxes because society wishes that you do so and you are compliant. Tomorrow, society can wish something different in the future and most people will be equally compliant. They call it society because it is "social".
You don't pay taxes in say Cuba and you get (or sometimes don't get) government services, but the societal contract is different there... You may (or may not) consider the contract "fair", but that's society.
The big problems come when there is an inherent "flaw" in the societal contract (can't provide the services due to lack of, or due to the poor distribution of resources like Venezuela), or too many folks don't follow the wishes/rules their society lays out for distribution of resources (e.g., Italy, Greece)...
There is no greater fallacy today than the belief the government must tax what it spends. All money is created by a ruling sovereignty. There is a reason the Secret Service is one of the oldest institutions around - counterfeiting is a direct attack on sovereignty.
Taxes are about inducing demand for state currency, and in modern economies, controlling for the inflation that comes from a government regulated banking system. You'll know the income tax was legalized within months of passing the Federal Reserve Act. Now you know why.
What a load of hogwash.
Except for recent actions like "quantitative easing" and other pump/dump strategies, way less than half of the "money" is created by sovereignty. It is created by the banks (and other financial institutions). Part of it is regulated by fraction reserve lending, the other part is the wild west (e.g., credit default swaps). The government tries to monopolize this by creating some demand by "taxation", but that only affects a portion of the "money" that gets exchanged (because many transactions are shielded from taxation).
For example, just the other day, Apple created $7B out of thin air by issuing bonds backed by money in Ireland out of the reach or purview of the Fed. The global Credit Default Swap market is estimated at around $500 trillion. Compared to the federal reserve about about $1.6 trillion actual deposits times the reserve ratio of 10% would only be a fraction of only the CDS market, not even including the corporate bond market and other financial derivative markets.
The cart is now driving the horse for better or worse...
In modern times, if the govt were to simply try print money to increase its budget, it probably couldn't print it fast enough to outpace inflation (as many countries that have tried have found out the hard way).
So when someone simply is threatening to "out" someone (e.g., drug habit, sexual-orientation/perversion, infidelity) unless they do something specific, that isn't a crime/blackmail?
Hmm, interesting take on the law...
So if a pimp does this to a prostitute, but doesn't demand money or property from said prostitute, that is okay? How about someone requiring a congressperson/senator to vote a specific way? Or a mobster wanting a member of the police or bureaucracy to look the other way when enforcing a law/rule against a "family" business?
I suppose it all depends on how you define money or property (or perhaps the net present value of decision or action that results in potential fewer monies or properties as actual property or money being demanded).
Being an intelligent (young) woman is most decidedly a threat.
Yes, sadly, a threat to overstay their visas. Sadly, that is one of the criteria that has been historically used by bureaucrats in the visa office to deny visas.
In case you haven't been involved in obtaining visas for foreigners before, this is unfortunately quite common. I've seen this many times, despite impeccable invitation letters, pre-paid round trip air tickets, evidence of foreign funds (bank accounts), evidence of strong ties to return (e.g., children, close family members), visas for young folks (12-30 years old) from many poor-er countries get routinely denied by bureaucrats in the various visa offices ostensibly for this reason.
Depending on your politics and your sympathies, you may not care about this risk, but to some of the faceless bureaucrats running the visa offices, visa overstay risk is as much of a "threat" as association with terrorists.
On the flip side, see it from their point of view in "enforcing" the laws on the books: a group of young girls with little to tie them to their home country (and who might be ostracized in their own country for being educated), want a visa to travel to the USA on limited funds. Sadly, you gotta admit that at least a yellow flag would be raised that they are at risk of overstaying their visa. Maybe you don't care if they overstay, but depending on who was reviewing their visa application, that person might happen to care enough to deny the visa and I suspect that is exactly what happened.
The record is currently 134 degrees F from July 10, 1913, in Death Valley... But that doesn't fit the narrative of "modern AGW times"...
Even in more modern times, back in 2013, Death Valley reached 53.9C (besting this latest temperature in Ahvaz by 0.2C)... Of course back in 2013, we weren't as modern as we are today...
Slashdot Mirror
If you can come up with a better distributed protocol for a distributed ledger where none of the parties trust one another, let's hear it. The current state of the art for that kind of thing consumes a lot of power, but not more than other less trustworthy systems.
FWIW, Proof of stake (vs proof of work) is the leading candidate for such a protocol. However, the wart on Proof of stake systems is they need complicated protocols to establish consensus in the face of adversaries that want to fork the chain (since there is nothing like work/energy limiting an adversary working on multiple forks).
Funny.
I have no ads anywhere other than in browser on sites that have them. Maybe it is because I choose decent apps and pay for them. Instead of downloading every piece of shit freeware on the face of the planet and then complaining about it.
If your phone vendor "accidentally" put ads into their stock keyboard app...
I guess you need to amend that to choosing decent phone vendors...
THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
Tender is meant to extinguish a *debt*, it doesn't necessarily mean for *payment*. There is a subtle distinction between the two. If someone is essentially offering you "credit" and you settle at the end (e.g. going out to a meal in a restaurant, or a taxi ride, or paying your taxes), you technically incur a debt and then later extinguish that debt with payment which they need to accept "cash" as legal tender. For example, it isn't legal for a restaurant to require you to wash dishes, or give them your fancy shoes the owner has been eyeing to extinguish your tab of $250 (although it is of course allowed if both parties agree), if you can simply scrape up and tender them the $250 they must accept this as tender for retiring the debt (if instead you decide to dine and dash you technically still owe the debt even though it is essentially impossible for them to collect).
However, if the exchange is virtually simultaneous payment (e.g, paying for a meal in a quick serve restaurant, or pre-paying fixed priced for transit), no debt is created, so they can generally choose to accept whatever form of payment that is allowed by local laws for their goods or services.
Never understood how apartment and rent can be required to be non-cash payment.
In this case it is part of a *contract*, not a debt. In your lease, you agreed in advance to not pay your rent in cash (probably in the fine print you didn't read).
Another issue is how do I pay my neighbor kid to mow my lawn with a credit card?
Paypal or some other peer-to-peer payment service...
Another issue is that I simply may not want Visa, and via third party records, the government, know exactly what I'm spending on and how frequently. The phrase "None of your business" comes to mind if for no other reason that it is, after all, none of their damned business.
Although I agree with this sentiment, unfortunately, the tide is about to wash over us in this position...
May I ask where you are? Certainly with the business banking terms we typically see here in the UK, the fees heavily favour electronic transactions to the point that just putting cash into the bank or taking it out would be in the same range as typical card payment fees and the like. There are other accounts with lower fees for cash-based businesses, but they charge much higher fees for the electronic stuff.
FWIW, the merchant card transaction fees in the US are dominated by "interchange-fees" for cards categorized as reward cards (e.g, the 2% cash-back or airline miles). If there were no reward cards, the merchant fees are very similar to the cash handling overhead.
Of course someone needs to pay for those cash-back and rewards bonuses and it isn't the card issuers... There are some payment processors that "hide" this interchange fee variance (e.g., square), but they simply just gross-it-up into their merchant-markup (e.g., Square charges ~2.75% flat where the underlying wholesale interchange rate varies from 2.4% for visa signature preferred down to 1.43% for traditional cards for similar merchant categories).
The merchant agreements require merchants accept all logo'ed payments so every time a merchant without a flat merchant fee accept a rewards card, they are in fact slightly punished for accepting a rewards card. The "theory" of why that is supposed to be a good thing is that rewards cards holders tend to be bigger spenders (which may be true in aggregate, but perhaps not to the specific merchant). Merchants that suffer from this fee variance to hate this (much like they often rail against American express card 2.89% merchant fee and might ask you to pay with any card but AMEX even though that is prohibited by the merchant agreement with AMEX), but they are pretty much powerless to stop the Visa/MC card issuers from foisting this rewards "tax" on them.
going away, my current credit cards won't leave an imprint
This is Visa's official stance on this...
U.S. merchants who work in the face-to-face sales environment may include CVV2 in the authorization request for U.S. domestic key-entered transactions in lieu of taking a manual card imprint. The CVV2 with Magnetic-Stripe Failures process is applicable to all card products when the magnetic-stripe fails at the point of sale (e.g., embossed cards, unembossed cards, vertical cards and cards with customized designs).
If an unembossed card will not swipe and the chip cannot be read, you should ask for another form of payment. Do not manually key enter unembossed cards (unless you participate in the CVV2 with Magnetic-Stripe Failures process), or write the account number on a paper draft. A marked paper draft will not protect a merchant against chargebacks.
Of course, if you can't call in to get an authorization (e.g., power out), you are SOL...
According to this article...
Maria Hellberg, a judge at the court, said that bankruptcy applications can be made by mailing a signed declaration of insolvency. The signature doesn't have to be notarized and there is no fee to file the application.
I suspect that this will all be changing shortly ;^)
How big is that in football-fields?
What do you mean, an American or European football-field?
Auuuugh...
Maybe, the perceived mistreatment of females in the Islam-dominated societies is more nuanced than we usually think...
In many countries, blood-line trumps all... Even Benazir Bhutto (first women leader of Pakistan) had a blood line...
Heck even in the USA, George Bush and Obama were 11th cousins, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are 19th cousins...
No not technically. Did particle A starting in position X end up at position Y? Was any information transferred or able to be transferred? Is faster than light communication possible? The answer to all these are no. Describing entanglement with teleportation is dumb.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Actually, quantum information was transferred. Of course there wasn't faster than light communication as quantum teleportation relies on entanglement *and* a classical communication channel.
For each qubit of information that wants to be sent, one of a pair of entangled photons needs to be conveyed to the destination (which can be done at nearly lightspeed for photons in free-space). After this is conveyance is done, then anytime later, a qubit from a third photon can be "teleported" to the destination by use of a conventional communication channel (which obviously isn't faster than light speed).
The way this works is you jointly measure the 3rd photon and your local singleton of the previously entangled photon which yields one of 4 joint states. This doesn't tell you the original state of the 3rd photon, only the joint state relative to the entangled photon, (but in the process collapses the state of these photons).
You then send this description of the measurement (basically two bits of information) across a classical channel to the destination (at whatever speed you want).
To replicate the quantum state at the destination, you manipulate the phase of the previously conveyed/entangled photon (without measuring it) according to on the results of the relative (2-bit) state description. After this manipulation, this previously conveyed entangled-photon has a non-collapsed replicated quantum state of the original 3rd photon, but the state was transmitted/teleported to its destination over a classical channel.
You can read the details from their paper paper. Over 32 days, they managed 911 four-photon events and achieved an estimated accuracy of about 80% of conveying the quantum state (the theoretical limit accuracy of a conventional channel was about 66% w/o using information obtained using measurements of previously conveyed entangled photons).
Remember you can't simply pre-measure a quantum state w/o collapsing it to determine the accuracy rate, so accuracy was determined statistically using two entangled pairs (which is why they needed to create a four-photon-event and for which it was hard to create a process for).
Baby steps.
Notes the role of commercial strategies, such as product leasing, in the design of durable products, whereby leasing firms retain ownership of the leased units and have an incentive to remarket products and to invest in designing more durable products, resulting in a lower volume of new production and disposal products;... Highlights that the shift towards business models such as ‘products as services’ has the potential to improve the sustainability of production and consumption patterns.
Part of the report seems to dwell on the potential benefits of a shift away from people actually owning any products...
We've seen how this works out on the software side of things...
oh man, I almost got taken in by this one and if so I'd be assigned the Whoosh Co. I'm thinking why would anyone buy a car of any sort in a congested place like HK.
Reminds me of one time when I visited my grandparents in HK as a kid (in the mid 1970's). He
had use car from his job and wanted to drive us to go to dinner. Took about 20-mins and he dropped us off in front of the restaurant. With no place to park, he drove back to the house and walked back to the restaurant and joined us about 20-minutes later.
Even the airport is squeezed, there's many videos that landing a typical airliner is action and adventure (means need plenty of barf bags).
That was the old Kai Tak airport's infamous "checkerboard" approach. The new HKG international airport's over-water approach is pretty bog standard and relatively boring...
The correct answer is that it's a trick question. You need A, C & D at least.
Although, if I had to pick only one, it's C. With enough capital, you can afford to buy the rest.
Hell, with enough capital you can prop the thing up long enough to take it public, then dump it on the market and walk away with millions.
That's what most startup companies do when they realize they don't have customers. The startups that actually have customers are too busy trying to mortgage their future to keep their customers and they get way less capital than they generally need.
When you want something, getting it is easy. When you need something you'll pay through the nose to get it.
Any company can play hardball. Whole Foods could have walked away if they wanted. (but they would have been a fool)
Kind of like when Yahoo walked away from that Microsoft bid, right? Isn't that news either way?
is all these damn kids on my lawn.
Old man, I think you are on the wrong thread, the pokemon go thread is over here
</snicker>
Uhmmm... that would be the point of using DHKE or one its variants, so that you *CAN'T* recover the unencrypted data without first intercepting the key exchange itself that occurs at the beginning of the communication. This is quite trivially susceptible to MitM attacks without adding authentication steps to the process, but with wireless communication, setting up a man-in-the-middle to intercept the communication is not feasible, so authentication is moot.
I think you are perhaps missing the point. They can recover the key from the encrypted data using this attack. They don't need to attack the key exchange to make this attack work so anything making the key exchange "better" is pointless. The weakness is apparently in the GMR-2 stream cipher itself, so they *CAN* recover the unencrypted data w/o needing to intercept the key exchange or the session information.
Some variant of Diffie-Helman key exchange would probably do quite nicely...
Sorry, no. The attack described is on the GMR-2 stream cipher itself, not the key exchange. Because of a weakness in the key schedule of the cipher, and the underlying structure of the encrypted data frame related to the key schedule, they can actually recover the key directly from they encrypted data frame ignoring the session key exchange entirely.
The fact that they are using some crappy secret stream cipher to sat-phones is a testament to how little research has gone into good stream ciphers (vs creating block ciphers like AES). Although we also shouldn't be too smug about AES either. In a similar vein, a weakness in AES block cipher key schedule was not detected until many years later made AES-256 less secure than its 2^256 key-space would indicate (in fact because of this weakness, AES-256 may be even less secure than AES-192). And AES is/was a heavily researched block cipher, not a "secret" satellite phone cipher.
H1-B is not a good visa for competing with tech talent. Now, I have certainly worked with some very bright people, even PhDs, who are here on H1-Bs. But, I've also worked with slightly shrewder PhDs who have negotiated to get O-1 visas (not that difficult if you have a PhD in an in demand field). It seems to me that the problem isn't the immigrants, it's the visa. Change the visa, kick out the outsourcing mills and indentured servants, keep the high-tech talent and give them a green card. That's a solution that puts America first.
H1B is only a problem if you are from India or China. From other countries, it's a very short step to a Green Card, but because of the 7% per-country limit on Green cards, coming from India or China is generally a problem.
For example, the green card queue for India is so backlogged that they are only allowing EB-2 applications from July 22, 2008 now (China isn't much better at March 22, 2013). Every other country is "current" meaning that you can immediately apply for a EB-2 green card after receiving your H1B (of course because of bureaucracy, it takes anywhere from 6-months to a year to actually get your Green Card after applying but there's no feasible way to change a government bureaucracy).
Note that the 7% per-country limit includes both employment-based, family-based, and diversity(lottery)-based applicants, so even though there are about a million green cards issued per year, the fact that a disproportionate number apply from India and China, people wishing to immigrate to the US are "forced" to use the H1B as a stop-gap (something it wasn't really designed to be used for).
Some are lobbying to change the 7% rule, but there's a bunch of inertia in that number. Limits have been part of US immigration rules since the 1920's and was a compromise between those that wanted no national origin limits and those that favored a discriminatory 3% rule that was in effect after WWI.
We have Tim Matins from Tim Hortons, so we dont get breakfast at the clown house. Canada 1 Usa 0.
I hate to break it to you, but now Tim Hortons = Burger King and BK has that silly king clown mascot...
But thanks for taking BK off of our hands ;^)
I know several tech people that have left Canada to work for companies like Google and Epic games and other big tech firms. Even if this program merely stems the flow or evens out the egress, it may be a win.
Most of the folks I know that have left Canada did it for higher wages and more opportunity. I suppose Canada can attempt to backfill with immigrants from other nations, but I suspect in the best case all it will do is create a "discount" Silicon Valley (similar to India, but which isn't 12.5 timezones away).
A better strategy would be for Canada figure out how to attract more investment money, not discount employees to prevent their current brain-drain (and might accelerate their current problems). Actual investment (and tax incentives) is how Canada advanced their movie industry. The Canadian movie industry was able to take significant business away from Hollywood. Canada didn't simply open the doors to discount actors and fast track immigration and hope for the best...
But hey, they are welcome to try it their way...
or too many folks don't follow the wishes/rules their society lays out for distribution of resources (e.g., Italy, Greece)...
Everyone keeps blaming the poor who don't have any money and don't make any rules, instead of the rich who have all the money and make all the rules that allow them to amass it. This is a lot of crap. Every one of these governments knows who has the money, and what they are doing to get it, and usually what they are doing with it, but they don't go after them because of corruption. That's true whether you're talking about Greece or you're talking about the USA.
FWIW, nowhere did I blame the "poor" for tax evasion in Greece. For example, I doubt the poor are responsible for the estimated €20B in swiss bank accounts owned by Greek citizens, and the poor are probably a small fraction of the estimated 15,000 individuals that owe €37B in back taxes to the government...
So government doesn't help the situation at all? What the hell am I paying taxes for?!
Don't ask a question you don't want to hear the answer to.... ;^)
You are simply paying taxes because society wishes that you do so and you are compliant. Tomorrow, society can wish something different in the future and most people will be equally compliant. They call it society because it is "social".
You don't pay taxes in say Cuba and you get (or sometimes don't get) government services, but the societal contract is different there... You may (or may not) consider the contract "fair", but that's society.
The big problems come when there is an inherent "flaw" in the societal contract (can't provide the services due to lack of, or due to the poor distribution of resources like Venezuela), or too many folks don't follow the wishes/rules their society lays out for distribution of resources (e.g., Italy, Greece)...
There is no greater fallacy today than the belief the government must tax what it spends. All money is created by a ruling sovereignty. There is a reason the Secret Service is one of the oldest institutions around - counterfeiting is a direct attack on sovereignty.
Taxes are about inducing demand for state currency, and in modern economies, controlling for the inflation that comes from a government regulated banking system. You'll know the income tax was legalized within months of passing the Federal Reserve Act. Now you know why.
What a load of hogwash.
Except for recent actions like "quantitative easing" and other pump/dump strategies, way less than half of the "money" is created by sovereignty. It is created by the banks (and other financial institutions). Part of it is regulated by fraction reserve lending, the other part is the wild west (e.g., credit default swaps). The government tries to monopolize this by creating some demand by "taxation", but that only affects a portion of the "money" that gets exchanged (because many transactions are shielded from taxation).
For example, just the other day, Apple created $7B out of thin air by issuing bonds backed by money in Ireland out of the reach or purview of the Fed. The global Credit Default Swap market is estimated at around $500 trillion. Compared to the federal reserve about about $1.6 trillion actual deposits times the reserve ratio of 10% would only be a fraction of only the CDS market, not even including the corporate bond market and other financial derivative markets.
The cart is now driving the horse for better or worse...
In modern times, if the govt were to simply try print money to increase its budget, it probably couldn't print it fast enough to outpace inflation (as many countries that have tried have found out the hard way).
CNN is not demanding money or property.
So when someone simply is threatening to "out" someone (e.g., drug habit, sexual-orientation/perversion, infidelity) unless they do something specific, that isn't a crime/blackmail?
Hmm, interesting take on the law...
So if a pimp does this to a prostitute, but doesn't demand money or property from said prostitute, that is okay? How about someone requiring a congressperson/senator to vote a specific way? Or a mobster wanting a member of the police or bureaucracy to look the other way when enforcing a law/rule against a "family" business?
I suppose it all depends on how you define money or property (or perhaps the net present value of decision or action that results in potential fewer monies or properties as actual property or money being demanded).
Being an intelligent (young) woman is most decidedly a threat.
Yes, sadly, a threat to overstay their visas. Sadly, that is one of the criteria that has been historically used by bureaucrats in the visa office to deny visas.
In case you haven't been involved in obtaining visas for foreigners before, this is unfortunately quite common. I've seen this many times, despite impeccable invitation letters, pre-paid round trip air tickets, evidence of foreign funds (bank accounts), evidence of strong ties to return (e.g., children, close family members), visas for young folks (12-30 years old) from many poor-er countries get routinely denied by bureaucrats in the various visa offices ostensibly for this reason.
Depending on your politics and your sympathies, you may not care about this risk, but to some of the faceless bureaucrats running the visa offices, visa overstay risk is as much of a "threat" as association with terrorists.
On the flip side, see it from their point of view in "enforcing" the laws on the books: a group of young girls with little to tie them to their home country (and who might be ostracized in their own country for being educated), want a visa to travel to the USA on limited funds. Sadly, you gotta admit that at least a yellow flag would be raised that they are at risk of overstaying their visa. Maybe you don't care if they overstay, but depending on who was reviewing their visa application, that person might happen to care enough to deny the visa and I suspect that is exactly what happened.
The record is currently 134 degrees F from July 10, 1913, in Death Valley...
But that doesn't fit the narrative of "modern AGW times"...
Even in more modern times, back in 2013, Death Valley reached 53.9C (besting this latest temperature in Ahvaz by 0.2C)... Of course back in 2013, we weren't as modern as we are today...
Anything for click-bait these days, right?