Nope. It's not $150,000 per instance, it's $150,000 per "infringed work". So if Bitmanagement Software were to go the statutory damages route, they could only sue for a maximum of $150,000 since only one work was infringed upon. What they're doing is going for actual damages (the license fee for each copy of their program) and since the fee is about $1,000 per copy and they're talking about 500,000 copies, that's quite a bit of money.
True enough. Although looking at the figures given in the summary, there's one hell of a lot of redundancy in their 2.2 petabyte/gram estimate. Looking up the molecular masses of the base pairs plus the sugar chain to make up a DNA molecule and assuming 2 bits per base pair, I get approximately 160,000 petabytes per gram of material (no redundancy), so the estimate given in the summary has a redundancy factor of about 73,000.
Might want to reconsider your statement DarkOx, the real issue is that the US Government attempted to use a warrant where it should have used a subpoena. A warrant and a subpoena are two different legal documents with very different powers and limitations.
Warrant - Government is allowed to seize evidence without prior notice or opportunity to challenge, but the government is required to specify where the search is to occur and describe exactly what it is searching for. Additionally, the search location has to be within the United States.
Subpoena - Grants the government the power to require a person to collect items in their possession, control, or custody regardless of their location and bring said items to court. However, the one served with the subpoena may move in advance to quash the subpoena.
What the US Government was attempting with Microsoft was some sort of strange document that combined all the powers of both a warrant and a subpoena, but with none of the limitations of either.
Actually having the population use their brains would totally undermine politics as we know it. Do you have any idea how much chaos would happen if people actually started thinking critically instead of reacting emotionally? What would our demagogues^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h statesmen do for a living?
Require the "owning" company to move connections, etc., in a reasonable amount of time after being notified. If the connections aren't moved within the legally mandated time, then "ownership" of the pole is transferred to the requesting company. That would prevent the "we don't have time" or "we're going to ignore you" or the other kinds of slimy activities that the owning company would perform in order to handicap their competitor.
Yep, it's just a language. The thing I find oddest about it is how it handles subroutines. A long time ago, I attempted to figure out how I would translate from COBOL to assembly and figured out that the only way to actually do so and duplicate the behavior I'd see with COBOL would be to not use a stack, but instead have a little epilog at the end of each paragraph that was the last paragraph of a perform statement. In pseudo code, it would look something like this.
=========== PERFORM PARAGRAPH_A THRU PARAGRAPH_B. CODE RESUMES HERE.
Load address of RESUME in register temp1
Store register temp1 in PARAGRAPH_B_EPILOG
Jump to PARAGRAPH_A RESUME:
code continues here....
PARAGRAPH_A
code.... PARAGRAPH_B
code...
Load register temp1 with contents of PARAGRAPH_B_EPILOG
Load address of PARAGRAPH_C in register temp2
Store register temp2 in PARAGRAPH_B_EPILOG
Jump to address in register temp1 PARAGRAPH_C:
code....
Somewhere in data PARAGRAPH_B_EPILOG:
WORD VALUE initialized to address of PARAGRAPH_C
================
Really odd and didn't require a stack. But would account for the behavior observed whenever some did a PERFORM statement and somewhere within the target paragraphs did a GO TO to some other section of code. If they did that, it would "look" as if things were OK, but if for some reason the code execution path later crossed the boundary between the last named paragraph in the PERFORM statement and the next paragraph, the flow of control would suddenly jump to the statement following the PERFORM statement. It would also account for the situations where PERFORM statements would be used on overlapping ranges of paragraphs. Definitely an odd language, but understandable since the S/360 didn't have a stack.
If there's a mirror, then the light source is on the same side as the observer. Light goes through the display, reflects off the mirror and then comes back towards the observer...
To all those who think a transparent display would be useful as an automotive HUD.... You are wrong.
The focus issues have already been adequately addressed, but there's even a more fundamental issue. Namely, light. The transparent display is basically a selectively opaque display and it requires a light source on the opposite side of the display from the observer. This might work during the day, but would definitely not work during the night.
.... then he's a fool. After all, placing the idea of "this person is an idiot without proper backups" isn't exactly what I'd like potential customers to be thinking about my company.
But I now use an ad blocker for a very simple reason.
I was looking at a web site for some information that I was interested in and in the middle of my reading, the page suddenly scrolled to somewhere in the middle and started playing a video ad. I stopped the video and then spent a fair amount of time attempting to actually resume my reading at the place where I was interrupted (not extremely easy since it was a long page with lots of dense text and I had been involuntarily scrolled away from my place without warning).Just as I resumed reading, the damn ad once again scrolled me away from where I was and started playing the video again. After a few cycles of this bullshit, I decided to install an ad blocker and then went back to the page and actually managed to get the information I desired. And since it's quite frankly easier to block all ads instead of configuring the ad block to only block on certain pages, I by default block all ads. And I have no desire to go back to having ads again. My web pages load faster and I no longer have the damn ads attempting to vie for my attention.
About the US Government requiring a polygraph to hold a Top Secret clearance and higher....
That's both true and false.
If the person is in the military, then a polygraph isn't taken. The reason is that duty assignments are considered "involuntary" and as such requiring a polygraph would be unjust. However, civilian employees are required to pass a polygraph. In fact, there have been a few cases where a military member left the service and immediately came back to the same organization as a civilian and was required to take a polygraph.... and failed... so were denied employment at the very same organization that they just left.
I used to be active duty military and at the end of my career was working in WHCA (White House Communications Agency). That position required a TS/SCI Yankee White investigation (they tend to be a bit paranoid when you're in a position where you could physically touch the president without the Secret Service batting an eye). It was an interesting assignment, but eventually I left the service and took employment with a government contractor and was required to obtain another TS/SCI clearance. And yes, a polygraph was required.
The first polygraph that I took had "issues" and I was rescheduled to take a second polygraph. I too had issues with the polygraph since it felt to me that a game was being played where I wasn't informed as to the rules. So in my typical fashion, I researched polygraph technology and found out quite a few interesting things. One item I encountered was a reference to a classified study on polygraphy. I wasn't able to obtain the study itself, but assuming that the study reflected the publicly available information on the polygraph and if I were to be a classification authority, then I too would have classified the study.
Why? Because simply, the publicly available information boils down to this. Polygraphy as a means of detecting true or falsehood, it's totally worthless. But as a means of eliciting voluntary confessions from naive subjects, it is extremely effective.
Notice the phrase "naive subjects."
Let's just say that on my followup polygraph, I understood the rules of the game, informed the polygrapher and she was the one who had an unhappy time. The results were inconclusive and I did get my TS/SCI clearance.
Yes, as a civilian employee in the United States, you are required to take a polygraph to obtain a TS or higher clearance, but that it just one element of the clearance process and it doesn't require the subject to actually believe in the effectiveness of the polygraph.
I would be rather interested in where you're getting the figures for that assertion. Looking at the graph at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is that for the period from 1958 to 2015, CO2 levels have changed from 315 ppm to 405 ppm which most certainty doesn't look like "doubled".
Well, let's just say that I'm less than impressed by the knowledge that mankind is causing approximately 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect on earth. I'm also less than impressed by people who when asked "What greenhouse gas has the greatest influence on the greenhouse effect on earth?" and they answer... no, let me correct that... parrot "Carbon Dioxide". Hint: Carbon dioxide is only about 5% of the total greenhouse effect on earth. The actual major contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor. But the problem with water vapor is that the government can't demonize it and use it as a basis for a power grab. But carbon dioxide is quite easy to demonize. Too bad that mankind only produces about 5% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.. And too bad that several studies seem to be conveniently ignored when discussing climate change.
The key issue is that scientists have found a good correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide by examining tree growth rings, gas bubbles in ice core samples, etc. And yep, they see that higher levels of CO2 are correlated with higher temperatures and visa-versa. But there's just one little catch..... The changes in CO2 levels LAG the changes in global temperatures by approximately 40 to 50 years. I don't know about you, but I'm a firm believer that if there's a cause and effect relationship between two variables, that the cause happens before the effect, not the opposite. So if CO2 level changes lag temperature changes by several decades that indicates that temperature changes are the cause, not the effect.
Now what might be the reason for CO2 levels to change after temperature changes? One of the first things that comes to mind is that the solubility of CO2 in water is inversely proportional to temperature. Higher temperatures mean less solubility and lower temperatures means greater solubility. So if the global temperatures change, the oceanic temperatures also change, but with a significant lag due to the thermal inertia of such a great mass of water.
It's obvious that you're confused about the difference between a one time pad and a cipher. What you're saying is perfectly correct for a cipher. Only the key will give you a meaningful message and therefore you can verify that the key is correct. However, that is not the case for a OTP. For example, here is a simple description of a OTP.
1. Generate a 1 gigabyte file of random bytes using a true random number generator. An example of such a source would be what's generated by Hot Bits using timing intervals of a radioactive source. It's absolutely critical that they be truely random numbers and not something generated by a deterministic algorithm. 2. Copy that file and give the copy to the entity that you wish to communicate with in the future. NOTE: At this point there should be exactly TWO copies of the file. One copy is retained by you and you alone. The other copy is retained by the entity you wish to communicate with in the future.
Now in order to send a message securely to the entity having the copy of the OTP, you create the message. Let's assume that the message is one million bytes long. Just take the 1st one million bytes of the OTP and exclusive or each byte of the message with the corresponding byte of the OTP to create each byte of the message. After you've done that, delete the million bytes of the OTP you've just used so that you'll never use those bytes again.
The receiver of your encrypted message performs the exact same actions with their copy of the OTP. Exclusive or each byte of the encrypted message with the corresponding byte of the OTP to get the original plain text message, then delete those bytes of the OTP that were originally used.
Basically, a message encrypted with an OTP can be ANY message of equivalent length in any language.
> Unfortunately, OTPs are of limited value in practice, > since they key must be at least as long as the message.
So why are they of 'limited value' anyway?
Is it really so hard to exchange a 1TB USB stick with your Mom, whose mail program then uses the random pads from the stick to happily encrypt all the news about her new kitten?
Like seriously...
The reason OTPs are of limited use is because you need to transmit the OTP in a secure fashion. And if you can transmit the key securely, then it's most likely that you could have transmitted the message itself securely eliminating the need for the OTP in the first place.
But yes, OTPs are used when secure transmission is absolutely required. Effectively they "time shift" when the secure transfer is performed. And if the OTP is long enough, it can mean that only 1 secure transfer is needed in order to handle multiple secure message transmissions later.
Whenever the police stop someone in the line of duty, they have to make a report. And that report needs the names of anyone they talked to. They weren't looking for her name in order to verify her story, they were looking for her name so that if anyone asked them about the incident, they could say "We talked with a Mrs Bland and informed her that she was obstructing traffic and if she does have to walk in the street, to walk facing traffic."
Frankly, the purpose of the rant was to cause that piece of excrement to be replaced with something reasonable AND to give notice to other programmers that that kind of sloppy shit is not acceptable. As for those who complain that his rant was unnecessary and hurt someone's feelings, I have to ask you "Who submitted the sloppy code?" I don't see any names in the rant. Yes, I know that one could take a look at the commit logs to determine who it was, but in all honestly, I seriously doubt that anyone will. So the idiot who committed that piece of shit wasn't called out by name or publically humiliated.
You don't seem to notice that the price being quoted is per watt. Not per square foot or any other measure of area. So the new higher efficiency panels will cost more than the older panels. But the new panels will generate more power. As for the customer cost, like other posters have observed, the lions share is for the control electronics and inverters.
The thing I find most annoying about the global warming issue is that there's entirely too much politics and too little science. For instance, ask people the question "What greenhouse gas has the most influence on Earth's temperature?" and the vast majority will say "Carbon Dioxide." Only problem with that answer is that it's wrong. Water vapor accounts for about 95% of the total greenhouse effect on earth. Only about 5% is due to carbon dioxide. And the interesting thing is that most of that 5% is totally natural. Mankind only creates about 5% of that 5% giving about 0.27% of the total greenhouse effect that is contributed by mankind. Yes, just a smidge over one fourth of one percent.
Do I believe that global warming is real? Yes, I do. Do I believe that global warming is due to mankind? No, I do not.
Some minor little details that the global warming crowd ignore that they really need to address. 1. Viking farms underneath the glaciers in Greenland. Archeologists have found these farms. Interesting thing. The existence of those farms indicate that Earth was warmer in the past than it currently is. Else those farms wouldn't be covered by glaciers. And given when those farms were made, mankind wasn't generating appreciable levels of carbon dioxide. That little detail right there makes their "global warming is due to mankind" argument more than a bit suspect.
2. Scientists have found a definite correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global temperature by analyzing ice core samples, tree growth rings, etc. It is a proven fact that higher global temperatures are associated with higher levels of carbon dioxide. Sounds like something good for the global warming crowd doesn't it? However, there is one slight problem. The correlation is skewed over time. It turns out that carbon dioxide level changes lag global temperature changes by approximately 40 to 50 years. That's right folks, when the temperature changes, the CO2 changes about 4 decades later. If you have a cause and effect relationship between two variables, I would expect the variable that changes first to be considered the cause, and the variable that changes later to be the effect. And the data doesn't look good for the "global warming is caused by mankind" crowd.
Why would CO2 levels change after a temperature change? One theory is that the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with increasing temperature and increases with decreasing temperature. And we have a very large body of water on this planet. The oceans can be acting as a huge CO2 repository and when they get warming, they release some of that CO2 and when they get colder, they absorb some of that CO2. That would definitely explain the lag.
Right now in my opinion, the global warming caused by mankind crowd are using CO2 as a means of demonizing the west. After all, it is a proven fact that burning fossil fuel does generate CO2. So those people can point to the west and say "See? They're harming the environment." They can't demonize plain old water vapor, even though water vapor is the biggest contributor to the green house effect. Are we having a significant effect on Earth's temperature? I wouldn't think so since we're only having about one fourth of one percent of the total effect.
I didn't use any ad blockers until I encountered a page with information I needed and the page had an ad on it... That after about a minute would start playing a video AND shift the browser focus to that video. I would have to then stop the video and then scroll down the page to where I was before I was so rudely interrupted. And since that process took close to a minute (it was a very large page with a lot of dense information), I would only get 10 to 20 seconds or reading before the damn ad once again restarted and shifted focus. So ad blocker was installed and since I'm a lazy son of a bitch, I don't bother to turn it off on other pages that act responsibly. So In a nutshell, one asshole advertiser resulted in the blocking of every advertiser on my computer.
The objective of "mathematically proven security properties" via program obfuscation is definitely not achievable. After all, it's a given security principle of "security through obfuscation" is unsupportable. If an adversary is capable of obtaining the executable of a program, they can also reverse engineer that same executable. It may take a lot of effort, but it is always achievable.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. It's not $150,000 per instance, it's $150,000 per "infringed work". So if Bitmanagement Software were to go the statutory damages route, they could only sue for a maximum of $150,000 since only one work was infringed upon. What they're doing is going for actual damages (the license fee for each copy of their program) and since the fee is about $1,000 per copy and they're talking about 500,000 copies, that's quite a bit of money.
True enough. Although looking at the figures given in the summary, there's one hell of a lot of redundancy in their 2.2 petabyte/gram estimate. Looking up the molecular masses of the base pairs plus the sugar chain to make up a DNA molecule and assuming 2 bits per base pair, I get approximately 160,000 petabytes per gram of material (no redundancy), so the estimate given in the summary has a redundancy factor of about 73,000.
Might want to reconsider your statement DarkOx, the real issue is that the US Government attempted to use a warrant where it should have used a subpoena. A warrant and a subpoena are two different legal documents with very different powers and limitations.
Warrant - Government is allowed to seize evidence without prior notice or opportunity to challenge, but the government is required to specify where the search is to occur and describe exactly what it is searching for. Additionally, the search location has to be within the United States.
Subpoena - Grants the government the power to require a person to collect items in their possession, control, or custody regardless of their location and bring said items to court. However, the one served with the subpoena may move in advance to quash the subpoena.
What the US Government was attempting with Microsoft was some sort of strange document that combined all the powers of both a warrant and a subpoena, but with none of the limitations of either.
... Teach your children to use their brains. ...
Are you kidding me?!?!?!?
Actually having the population use their brains would totally undermine politics as we know it. Do you have any idea how much chaos would happen if people actually started thinking critically instead of reacting emotionally? What would our demagogues^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h statesmen do for a living?
The concept of "solar roadways" has already been so thoroughly debunked, it's totally unbelievable that anyone would fund them.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Require the "owning" company to move connections, etc., in a reasonable amount of time after being notified. If the connections aren't moved within the legally mandated time, then "ownership" of the pole is transferred to the requesting company. That would prevent the "we don't have time" or "we're going to ignore you" or the other kinds of slimy activities that the owning company would perform in order to handicap their competitor.
There's a book you ought to read. It's "The Two Faces Of Tomorrow" by James P. Hogan.
Let's just say that it's entirely possible for an AI to "evolve" to become impossible to unplug. The above mentioned novel details the issue.
Yep, it's just a language. The thing I find oddest about it is how it handles subroutines. A long time ago, I attempted to figure out how I would translate from COBOL to assembly and figured out that the only way to actually do so and duplicate the behavior I'd see with COBOL would be to not use a stack, but instead have a little epilog at the end of each paragraph that was the last paragraph of a perform statement. In pseudo code, it would look something like this.
===========
PERFORM PARAGRAPH_A THRU PARAGRAPH_B.
CODE RESUMES HERE.
Load address of RESUME in register temp1
Store register temp1 in PARAGRAPH_B_EPILOG
Jump to PARAGRAPH_A
RESUME:
code continues here....
PARAGRAPH_A
code....
PARAGRAPH_B
code...
Load register temp1 with contents of PARAGRAPH_B_EPILOG
Load address of PARAGRAPH_C in register temp2
Store register temp2 in PARAGRAPH_B_EPILOG
Jump to address in register temp1
PARAGRAPH_C:
code....
Somewhere in data
PARAGRAPH_B_EPILOG:
WORD VALUE initialized to address of PARAGRAPH_C
================
Really odd and didn't require a stack. But would account for the behavior observed whenever some did a PERFORM statement and somewhere within the target paragraphs did a GO TO to some other section of code. If they did that, it would "look" as if things were OK, but if for some reason the code execution path later crossed the boundary between the last named paragraph in the PERFORM statement and the next paragraph, the flow of control would suddenly jump to the statement following the PERFORM statement. It would also account for the situations where PERFORM statements would be used on overlapping ranges of paragraphs. Definitely an odd language, but understandable since the S/360 didn't have a stack.
If there's a mirror, then the light source is on the same side as the observer. Light goes through the display, reflects off the mirror and then comes back towards the observer...
To all those who think a transparent display would be useful as an automotive HUD....
You are wrong.
The focus issues have already been adequately addressed, but there's even a more fundamental issue. Namely, light. The transparent display is basically a selectively opaque display and it requires a light source on the opposite side of the display from the observer. This might work during the day, but would definitely not work during the night.
.... then he's a fool. After all, placing the idea of "this person is an idiot without proper backups" isn't exactly what I'd like potential customers to be thinking about my company.
But I now use an ad blocker for a very simple reason.
I was looking at a web site for some information that I was interested in and in the middle of my reading, the page suddenly scrolled to somewhere in the middle and started playing a video ad. I stopped the video and then spent a fair amount of time attempting to actually resume my reading at the place where I was interrupted (not extremely easy since it was a long page with lots of dense text and I had been involuntarily scrolled away from my place without warning).Just as I resumed reading, the damn ad once again scrolled me away from where I was and started playing the video again. After a few cycles of this bullshit, I decided to install an ad blocker and then went back to the page and actually managed to get the information I desired. And since it's quite frankly easier to block all ads instead of configuring the ad block to only block on certain pages, I by default block all ads. And I have no desire to go back to having ads again. My web pages load faster and I no longer have the damn ads attempting to vie for my attention.
About the US Government requiring a polygraph to hold a Top Secret clearance and higher....
That's both true and false.
If the person is in the military, then a polygraph isn't taken. The reason is that duty assignments are considered "involuntary" and as such requiring a polygraph would be unjust. However, civilian employees are required to pass a polygraph. In fact, there have been a few cases where a military member left the service and immediately came back to the same organization as a civilian and was required to take a polygraph .... and failed ... so were denied employment at the very same organization that they just left.
I used to be active duty military and at the end of my career was working in WHCA (White House Communications Agency). That position required a TS/SCI Yankee White investigation (they tend to be a bit paranoid when you're in a position where you could physically touch the president without the Secret Service batting an eye). It was an interesting assignment, but eventually I left the service and took employment with a government contractor and was required to obtain another TS/SCI clearance. And yes, a polygraph was required.
The first polygraph that I took had "issues" and I was rescheduled to take a second polygraph. I too had issues with the polygraph since it felt to me that a game was being played where I wasn't informed as to the rules. So in my typical fashion, I researched polygraph technology and found out quite a few interesting things. One item I encountered was a reference to a classified study on polygraphy. I wasn't able to obtain the study itself, but assuming that the study reflected the publicly available information on the polygraph and if I were to be a classification authority, then I too would have classified the study.
Why?
Because simply, the publicly available information boils down to this.
Polygraphy as a means of detecting true or falsehood, it's totally worthless. But as a means of eliciting voluntary confessions from naive subjects, it is extremely effective.
Notice the phrase "naive subjects."
Let's just say that on my followup polygraph, I understood the rules of the game, informed the polygrapher and she was the one who had an unhappy time. The results were inconclusive and I did get my TS/SCI clearance.
Yes, as a civilian employee in the United States, you are required to take a polygraph to obtain a TS or higher clearance, but that it just one element of the clearance process and it doesn't require the subject to actually believe in the effectiveness of the polygraph.
I would be rather interested in where you're getting the figures for that assertion. Looking at the graph at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is that for the period from 1958 to 2015, CO2 levels have changed from 315 ppm to 405 ppm which most certainty doesn't look like "doubled".
Well, let's just say that I'm less than impressed by the knowledge that mankind is causing approximately 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect on earth. I'm also less than impressed by people who when asked "What greenhouse gas has the greatest influence on the greenhouse effect on earth?" and they answer ... no, let me correct that ... parrot "Carbon Dioxide".
Hint: Carbon dioxide is only about 5% of the total greenhouse effect on earth. The actual major contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor. But the problem with water vapor is that the government can't demonize it and use it as a basis for a power grab. But carbon dioxide is quite easy to demonize. Too bad that mankind only produces about 5% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.. And too bad that several studies seem to be conveniently ignored when discussing climate change.
The key issue is that scientists have found a good correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide by examining tree growth rings, gas bubbles in ice core samples, etc. And yep, they see that higher levels of CO2 are correlated with higher temperatures and visa-versa. But there's just one little catch..... The changes in CO2 levels LAG the changes in global temperatures by approximately 40 to 50 years. I don't know about you, but I'm a firm believer that if there's a cause and effect relationship between two variables, that the cause happens before the effect, not the opposite. So if CO2 level changes lag temperature changes by several decades that indicates that temperature changes are the cause, not the effect.
Now what might be the reason for CO2 levels to change after temperature changes? One of the first things that comes to mind is that the solubility of CO2 in water is inversely proportional to temperature. Higher temperatures mean less solubility and lower temperatures means greater solubility. So if the global temperatures change, the oceanic temperatures also change, but with a significant lag due to the thermal inertia of such a great mass of water.
It's obvious that you're confused about the difference between a one time pad and a cipher. What you're saying is perfectly correct for a cipher. Only the key will give you a meaningful message and therefore you can verify that the key is correct. However, that is not the case for a OTP. For example, here is a simple description of a OTP.
1. Generate a 1 gigabyte file of random bytes using a true random number generator. An example of such a source would be what's generated by Hot Bits using timing intervals of a radioactive source. It's absolutely critical that they be truely random numbers and not something generated by a deterministic algorithm.
2. Copy that file and give the copy to the entity that you wish to communicate with in the future. NOTE: At this point there should be exactly TWO copies of the file. One copy is retained by you and you alone. The other copy is retained by the entity you wish to communicate with in the future.
Now in order to send a message securely to the entity having the copy of the OTP, you create the message. Let's assume that the message is one million bytes long. Just take the 1st one million bytes of the OTP and exclusive or each byte of the message with the corresponding byte of the OTP to create each byte of the message. After you've done that, delete the million bytes of the OTP you've just used so that you'll never use those bytes again.
The receiver of your encrypted message performs the exact same actions with their copy of the OTP. Exclusive or each byte of the encrypted message with the corresponding byte of the OTP to get the original plain text message, then delete those bytes of the OTP that were originally used.
Basically, a message encrypted with an OTP can be ANY message of equivalent length in any language.
> Unfortunately, OTPs are of limited value in practice,
> since they key must be at least as long as the message.
So why are they of 'limited value' anyway?
Is it really so hard to exchange a 1TB USB stick with your Mom, whose mail program then uses the random pads from the stick to happily encrypt all the news about her new kitten?
Like seriously...
The reason OTPs are of limited use is because you need to transmit the OTP in a secure fashion. And if you can transmit the key securely, then it's most likely that you could have transmitted the message itself securely eliminating the need for the OTP in the first place.
But yes, OTPs are used when secure transmission is absolutely required. Effectively they "time shift" when the secure transfer is performed. And if the OTP is long enough, it can mean that only 1 secure transfer is needed in order to handle multiple secure message transmissions later.
Whenever the police stop someone in the line of duty, they have to make a report. And that report needs the names of anyone they talked to. They weren't looking for her name in order to verify her story, they were looking for her name so that if anyone asked them about the incident, they could say "We talked with a Mrs Bland and informed her that she was obstructing traffic and if she does have to walk in the street, to walk facing traffic."
Nope.
Frankly, the purpose of the rant was to cause that piece of excrement to be replaced with something reasonable AND to give notice to other programmers that that kind of sloppy shit is not acceptable. As for those who complain that his rant was unnecessary and hurt someone's feelings, I have to ask you "Who submitted the sloppy code?" I don't see any names in the rant. Yes, I know that one could take a look at the commit logs to determine who it was, but in all honestly, I seriously doubt that anyone will. So the idiot who committed that piece of shit wasn't called out by name or publically humiliated.
You don't seem to notice that the price being quoted is per watt. Not per square foot or any other measure of area. So the new higher efficiency panels will cost more than the older panels. But the new panels will generate more power. As for the customer cost, like other posters have observed, the lions share is for the control electronics and inverters.
The thing I find most annoying about the global warming issue is that there's entirely too much politics and too little science. For instance, ask people the question "What greenhouse gas has the most influence on Earth's temperature?" and the vast majority will say "Carbon Dioxide."
Only problem with that answer is that it's wrong.
Water vapor accounts for about 95% of the total greenhouse effect on earth. Only about 5% is due to carbon dioxide. And the interesting thing is that most of that 5% is totally natural. Mankind only creates about 5% of that 5% giving about 0.27% of the total greenhouse effect that is contributed by mankind. Yes, just a smidge over one fourth of one percent.
Do I believe that global warming is real? Yes, I do.
Do I believe that global warming is due to mankind? No, I do not.
Some minor little details that the global warming crowd ignore that they really need to address.
1. Viking farms underneath the glaciers in Greenland. Archeologists have found these farms. Interesting thing. The existence of those farms indicate that Earth was warmer in the past than it currently is. Else those farms wouldn't be covered by glaciers. And given when those farms were made, mankind wasn't generating appreciable levels of carbon dioxide. That little detail right there makes their "global warming is due to mankind" argument more than a bit suspect.
2. Scientists have found a definite correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global temperature by analyzing ice core samples, tree growth rings, etc. It is a proven fact that higher global temperatures are associated with higher levels of carbon dioxide. Sounds like something good for the global warming crowd doesn't it? However, there is one slight problem. The correlation is skewed over time. It turns out that carbon dioxide level changes lag global temperature changes by approximately 40 to 50 years. That's right folks, when the temperature changes, the CO2 changes about 4 decades later. If you have a cause and effect relationship between two variables, I would expect the variable that changes first to be considered the cause, and the variable that changes later to be the effect. And the data doesn't look good for the "global warming is caused by mankind" crowd.
Why would CO2 levels change after a temperature change? One theory is that the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with increasing temperature and increases with decreasing temperature. And we have a very large body of water on this planet. The oceans can be acting as a huge CO2 repository and when they get warming, they release some of that CO2 and when they get colder, they absorb some of that CO2. That would definitely explain the lag.
Right now in my opinion, the global warming caused by mankind crowd are using CO2 as a means of demonizing the west. After all, it is a proven fact that burning fossil fuel does generate CO2. So those people can point to the west and say "See? They're harming the environment." They can't demonize plain old water vapor, even though water vapor is the biggest contributor to the green house effect. Are we having a significant effect on Earth's temperature? I wouldn't think so since we're only having about one fourth of one percent of the total effect.
I didn't use any ad blockers until I encountered a page with information I needed and the page had an ad on it... That after about a minute would start playing a video AND shift the browser focus to that video. I would have to then stop the video and then scroll down the page to where I was before I was so rudely interrupted. And since that process took close to a minute (it was a very large page with a lot of dense information), I would only get 10 to 20 seconds or reading before the damn ad once again restarted and shifted focus. So ad blocker was installed and since I'm a lazy son of a bitch, I don't bother to turn it off on other pages that act responsibly. So In a nutshell, one asshole advertiser resulted in the blocking of every advertiser on my computer.
The objective of "mathematically proven security properties" via program obfuscation is definitely not achievable. After all, it's a given security principle of "security through obfuscation" is unsupportable. If an adversary is capable of obtaining the executable of a program, they can also reverse engineer that same executable. It may take a lot of effort, but it is always achievable.
The URL still works. I don't know if Disney has a link to the URL, but the URL itself is still active.
http://video.disney.com/watch/...
Although it may be soon slashdotted.