The cleartext password is encrypted with the key, and the encrypted version is stored in the password database (file, etc.). When you enter your password to gain access, it is encrypted in the same way and the encrypted versions are compared. Once encrypted, it can not be decrypted. It can only be cracked by encrypting trial passwords until one matches.
So having the key is irrelevant.
Unless they fucked up that very simple means of making password storage safe. Which I'm not betting money against.
The Census was one of the bigger cuts in the latest round of budgeting. And their job can be done on an iPhone.
And, anyway, techies don't think in think-tanks. They come up with their best stuff when they're ass-deep in alligators and wondering why the swamp was built in the middle of the I/O library.
Looks like an infestation of administratus runamokus.
"Somewhat" is hardly precedent. The "relevant" is only as it relates to the other evidence. If there weren't people saying the guy uploaded pictures of the girl to that computer, they couldn't just say "he has encryption software therefore he's a pedophile". They're kind of implying "we can't find the evidence the testimony describes but he may have encrypted it," but they aren't saying that outright. All the appeals judge is saying is he's not going to throw out what appears to be a righteous conviction just because of a quibble over the logic of a minor claim by the prosecution. He should simply have said that the relevance of the encryption was irrelevant, but instead he's leaving a legal booger for some other judge to flick off his finger if another prosecutor tries the same thing.
I assume you're talking about someone being convicted even though the encryption of the evidence wasn't broken. You might want to read that appeal ruling carefully. It implies that there is other evidence (testimony, likely), that contradicts the perp's claim that there was nothing encrypted on the computer, implying there was no encrypted kiddie-porn on the computer. The appeals court is basically saying that yes, it's mostly irrelevant that there happens to be PGP on a commonly configured computer. But there's enough evidence that pictures of a child were uploaded to the computer to make it irrelevant that the PGP is irrelevant. So the fact that PGP is common isn't enough of an argument to overturn any of the case.
So basically the testimony is enough to convict so even if the jury had relied on the existence of PGP it's not enough to un-convict. I.e., you don't "get off on a technicality" unless the technicality actually changes the validity of the evidence against you.
What they didn't do there is state as a precedent that the existence of encryption software is in itself evidence of a crime. In case that's where you're going.
It had to do with your ability to be represented in the central government. Our main excuse for the revolution, "taxation without representation", actually had less to do with the taxation than with the representation (but you won't find a single Tea-Partier focussing on the reality of their anachronistic hypocrisy when there's a tax to be repealed).
Centralized Democracy works better than Distributed Oligarchical Democracy when the news travels at Twitter speed. We may have to go to bimonthly Presidential elections to really make it work, but there's no reason we can't, other than tradition and institutional corruption.
If you want a disenfranchised minority to vote for you, buy them Internet. But arguing that they have a right to it just confuses the entire political landscape.
This is a new form of privacy of which the news has not come to Harvard.
I'm pretty sure information posted for the entire planet to read is not private.
Out on the street, a huckster can size you up in about ten seconds, with 90% accuracy. Online, in text, you're not wearing that tribal-armband tattoo, so it might take a few minutes to figure out you're a joiner with delusions of individuality.
Time to revise my motto: The Internet is not secure, and open forums are not private.
It's really only the outside layer that matters. If you can go from the top on that layer to the innermost two layers from that layer to the bottom outside layer, all the other layers must be included in the fold.
Unless you mean the 2^n layers are parallel to each other along a single bisector. That might take a little more mashing, but I don't see it as too far from where they are.
Think about that again. The rule is to fold a single, continuous piece of paper in half each time. You can only attach the ends of the two separate sets of folds, and then they aren't folded in half together, they're just stacked on top of each other. Not the same thing at all, or just rolling the toilet paper on a cardboard tube until it's the diameter of the universe would count as folding it.
At the moment there's no law requiring collection of state tax on inter-state purchases when the seller has no physical presence in the buyer's state.
There is also no national sales tax or VAT. There are a number of national business taxes, but they are the business's costs, so they are not broken-out in the price of the item (unless it's something like phone service, then there's a whole stack of taxes and fees, some just made up by the phone service to charge you extra and make you think it's mandated by law).
A number of states do have taxes that are supposed to be declared by the buyer after the interstate transaction, but unless the item or the buyer is otherwise tracked by the state those almost never get declared.
This law would cause the state tax to be collected by the seller and sent to the state of the buyer.
So it's not a new tax in some cases; it is a new rule to ensure tax gets paid.
And it's got benefits to the companies doing the selling. They will now have one less big reason to act inefficiently in determining where to put their sales and distribution centers.
Does it matter? If they're using alien frame rates, they're listening to miscued dubbing anyway. Or watching a bootleg copy filmed through someone's T-shirt. Bastardos!
That's getting more automated all the time. All you do is set some dots into the frame and the software takes care of translation and rotation and shading (curiously all three are one operation) and stretch and squeeze and blur. Once you spend all that money planning the scene and developing the model, there's an economy to using it for 10X more frames.
Slashdot Mirror
That ain't how password encryption works.
The cleartext password is encrypted with the key, and the encrypted version is stored in the password database (file, etc.). When you enter your password to gain access, it is encrypted in the same way and the encrypted versions are compared. Once encrypted, it can not be decrypted. It can only be cracked by encrypting trial passwords until one matches.
So having the key is irrelevant.
Unless they fucked up that very simple means of making password storage safe. Which I'm not betting money against.
They're calling it "aberration free" but they're really saying "we're too lazy to deconvolve things".
It's a CCD. It's going to pixellate the image. Badly. There's your aberration.
Oh, sure, we'll all be stunned and awed at how "sharp and clear" the "images" look when we render them pixel-for-pixel on our puny monitors.
But hold them up to the sky and they'll look like Atari game graphics by comparison.
Colbert asked them directly. They said they'd researched it, and were told that even Hubble can't see the gear and footprints.
And it was The Big Bang Theory that verified the existence of a reflector on the moon.
They said Hubble couldn't.
Webb might be able to.
And how did they get charge to curve?
Sounds very General Relativistic.
Only way to do that on that scale is supermassive micro black hole.
So that is what the LHC was built to manufacture!
The Census was one of the bigger cuts in the latest round of budgeting. And their job can be done on an iPhone.
And, anyway, techies don't think in think-tanks. They come up with their best stuff when they're ass-deep in alligators and wondering why the swamp was built in the middle of the I/O library.
Looks like an infestation of administratus runamokus.
"Somewhat" is hardly precedent. The "relevant" is only as it relates to the other evidence. If there weren't people saying the guy uploaded pictures of the girl to that computer, they couldn't just say "he has encryption software therefore he's a pedophile". They're kind of implying "we can't find the evidence the testimony describes but he may have encrypted it," but they aren't saying that outright. All the appeals judge is saying is he's not going to throw out what appears to be a righteous conviction just because of a quibble over the logic of a minor claim by the prosecution. He should simply have said that the relevance of the encryption was irrelevant, but instead he's leaving a legal booger for some other judge to flick off his finger if another prosecutor tries the same thing.
They got that capability the day the rm(1) command was compiled.
I assume you're talking about someone being convicted even though the encryption of the evidence wasn't broken. You might want to read that appeal ruling carefully. It implies that there is other evidence (testimony, likely), that contradicts the perp's claim that there was nothing encrypted on the computer, implying there was no encrypted kiddie-porn on the computer. The appeals court is basically saying that yes, it's mostly irrelevant that there happens to be PGP on a commonly configured computer. But there's enough evidence that pictures of a child were uploaded to the computer to make it irrelevant that the PGP is irrelevant. So the fact that PGP is common isn't enough of an argument to overturn any of the case.
So basically the testimony is enough to convict so even if the jury had relied on the existence of PGP it's not enough to un-convict. I.e., you don't "get off on a technicality" unless the technicality actually changes the validity of the evidence against you.
What they didn't do there is state as a precedent that the existence of encryption software is in itself evidence of a crime. In case that's where you're going.
It had to do with your ability to be represented in the central government. Our main excuse for the revolution, "taxation without representation", actually had less to do with the taxation than with the representation (but you won't find a single Tea-Partier focussing on the reality of their anachronistic hypocrisy when there's a tax to be repealed).
Centralized Democracy works better than Distributed Oligarchical Democracy when the news travels at Twitter speed. We may have to go to bimonthly Presidential elections to really make it work, but there's no reason we can't, other than tradition and institutional corruption.
How many links did I post?
How much did having a fully-CGI character composited with live actors for virtually an entire feature film cost the makers of Paul?
Hint: you're probably thinking an order of magnitude high.
Insurance scammers. One day, the "girlfriend" dies of Epstein-Barr Syndrome, and the perp collects on a fat double-indemnity clause.
Yes, those who think they have to pay to crib a .jpg and make up a backstory...
I thought of that a decade ago, but refuse to put my real name on the patent application.
You're not going to die of lack of Internet.
If you want a disenfranchised minority to vote for you, buy them Internet. But arguing that they have a right to it just confuses the entire political landscape.
This is a new form of privacy of which the news has not come to Harvard.
I'm pretty sure information posted for the entire planet to read is not private.
Out on the street, a huckster can size you up in about ten seconds, with 90% accuracy. Online, in text, you're not wearing that tribal-armband tattoo, so it might take a few minutes to figure out you're a joiner with delusions of individuality.
Time to revise my motto: The Internet is not secure, and open forums are not private.
That Anonymous Coward guy is going to have a mailbox full of goatse spam.
It's really only the outside layer that matters. If you can go from the top on that layer to the innermost two layers from that layer to the bottom outside layer, all the other layers must be included in the fold.
Unless you mean the 2^n layers are parallel to each other along a single bisector. That might take a little more mashing, but I don't see it as too far from where they are.
Think about that again. The rule is to fold a single, continuous piece of paper in half each time. You can only attach the ends of the two separate sets of folds, and then they aren't folded in half together, they're just stacked on top of each other. Not the same thing at all, or just rolling the toilet paper on a cardboard tube until it's the diameter of the universe would count as folding it.
At the moment there's no law requiring collection of state tax on inter-state purchases when the seller has no physical presence in the buyer's state.
There is also no national sales tax or VAT. There are a number of national business taxes, but they are the business's costs, so they are not broken-out in the price of the item (unless it's something like phone service, then there's a whole stack of taxes and fees, some just made up by the phone service to charge you extra and make you think it's mandated by law).
A number of states do have taxes that are supposed to be declared by the buyer after the interstate transaction, but unless the item or the buyer is otherwise tracked by the state those almost never get declared.
This law would cause the state tax to be collected by the seller and sent to the state of the buyer.
So it's not a new tax in some cases; it is a new rule to ensure tax gets paid.
And it's got benefits to the companies doing the selling. They will now have one less big reason to act inefficiently in determining where to put their sales and distribution centers.
More and more, our government is moving away from that idea, but some things still carry that influence.
Society is moving away from decentralization. It's a former efficiency that has become a vast inefficiency. Its time is gone.
The online nontax phenomenon is a big part of the reason many states are floundering in debt.
Amazon has brick-and-mortar presence (warehouse and distro centers) in a lot of states anyway, causing citizens of those states to have to pay taxes.
It's about time the giveaway stopped, and along with it the decimation of local businesses and governments.
Does it matter? If they're using alien frame rates, they're listening to miscued dubbing anyway. Or watching a bootleg copy filmed through someone's T-shirt. Bastardos!
That's getting more automated all the time. All you do is set some dots into the frame and the software takes care of translation and rotation and shading (curiously all three are one operation) and stretch and squeeze and blur. Once you spend all that money planning the scene and developing the model, there's an economy to using it for 10X more frames.