Ah, the No True Scotsman defense. Conservatives has failed miserably in government, so post hoc, you simply state that the people who failed weren't true conservatives.
Thoroughly debunked. You've proposed your theory, and it's a poor fit for the evidence. Too bad, because solar-cycle-driven climate change is a neat, tidy explanation that doesn't require us to do anything drastic, like raise somebody's taxes. Now we're left with conventional climate models to explain the evidence: care to try again?
Why would you jam the signal when you could proxy and filter it? Just set up a local base station inside the school. Phones will prefer to connect to that one over most distant stations. The school's station can then inspect all calls and allow only emergency ones through. (You could even implement policies like only allowing calls during lunch, or inter-class periods.)
The low-level, theory-side parts of psychology as are scientifically rigorous as it gets. (Ever hear of B.F. Skinner?) Psychologists working in these areas run experiments, compute correlations, and test hypothesis like anyone else.
On the other hand, the application side (i.e., therapy) is still chock full of "qualitative" research, unsupported speculation, and subjective interpretation. Psychological theory informs clinical work quite a bit, but there's inevitably a fudge factor involves when taking generalized results and apply them to individuals.
Still, patients (err, clients, or whatever the word is this week) ask for help, so psychologists are forced to fill in the blanks left by our rather incomplete theories using non-scientific methods. That's the core of OP view that psychology isn't a "real science". In reality, it is: it's just that therapy (by necessity) uses non-scientific ideas in addition to the results of psychology-the-science.
Face it: your side lost. Anthropogenic global warming is established fact. Do you also subscribe to Lamarkism, phrenoloy, abiogenic petroleum, and the luminous aether?
It's easy to poke a few isolated holes in any theory. You've made real progress when you're able to posit a theory that better explains the facts. Until then, you AGW deniers are behaving just like the other children in the room, the "intelligent design" advocates.
He seems to be contradicting himself there - in CTR mode you can easily flip bits of the cyphertext then make a new MAC.
Your "attack" works against any plain hash used a MAC. Good MACs, like HMAC, are not vulnerable to such trivial tampering: because an attacker does not have the secret key used to construct the original MAC, he can't create a valid MAC for his modified ciphertext.
A nonce doesn't need to be secret or unpredictable, but only unique. You can just use a counter. If you need a unique start, you can use a large random number to start the sequence, and it's easy to modularize a good cryptographic RNG. (Not that it's necessarily easy to create a good RNG.) There are a variety of ways to generate a good nonce.
The only other reasonable alternative is the venerable CBC mode, but using a non-repeating IV (a nonce by another name) for that mode is also recommended, since reusing an IV can leak information about the first block. Sometimes you don't care, and in special circumstances when you can't generate a nonce, CBC may be the least bad option. But for general purpose use, you might as well start with CTR.
Maybe. Twofish is almost as fast as AES, and possibly more secure. Schneier has a lengthy discussion in Practical Cryptography on possible weaknesses in AES that are a result of its simple algebraic structure, and to this day there are no successful attacks against Twofish or its 64-bit-blocked ancestor Blowfish. Then again, AES has received more scrutiny.
Sorry, but fuck you. Any component developer is more than capable of administering his own machine. If he can't even do that, then what business does he have writing software?
What is more is plastics and rubber have a finite shelf life so you can't bring all that you need with you, store them and expect to use them.
Rubber, maybe. You can get by without a lot of rubber. but plastic? Plastic sticks around forever.
What about accidents, disease, etc.
Well, you include a safety margin, of course. You decide what you want the probability of failure to be, run MTBF calculations on your equipment, and stock your inventory accordingly. Of course there's a chance of it all going wrong, but there always is. What you can do is run calculations and figure out what kind of equipment you'll need. Sure, there's always a risk of getting it wrong, but you can just build a safety margin into your numbers. It's all standard provisioning, really. It's just the scale that's unusual.
And every time you bring something with you, you increase the size of your ship and its fuel requirements. Which mean a slower journey or more fuel, which means a bigger ship.
We already know colonization would be unfathomably expensive by our standards. So what? You haven't convinced me that you'd need so much extra equipment that you couldn't build a ship to carry it all.
Like many problems, your can be solved by just increasing the scale: with enough spare bits, enough spare farming bits, and so on, you have enough time to establish suitable infrastructure before your initial stocks run low. Assuming a sophisticated culture prepares for this kind of endeavor, I don't see any fundamental problems with colonization.
Oh, that's bullshit. The transaction tax will be low enough that occasional trades to shuffle money between investments won't be affected. The fees are aimed at front-running leeches who use algorithmic trading to skim the market hurt everyone else.
Well, they pay almost no taxes. Nevermind that it's because half of them are below the poverty line, THEY DON'T PAY TEH TAXES AND R TRU PATRIOTS. *collapses on a pile of Truck Nutz*
Sorry, but I prefer to live in a state with a functioning government that can actually provide for its citizens. Take a hike and go live in Somalia if you're so opposed to civilization.
Purchasing power parity? Are you kidding me? That's just per-capita GDP with a paint job. Here are RFK's immortal words on that subject:
Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.
Huh? That's incoherent. If four companies each charge the same for a message and they have identical margins, then their cost is the same. A lower uniforn margin applied to the same cost will result in a uniform price. Also, if you were to try that, companies would just doctor their margin figures to support a higher price.
The Sherman Antitrust Act already has a remedy for price fixing: the act made it a felony. All we need to do is enforce this 1898 piece of legislation.
The French have a higher standard of living than we do, so of course you can expect some prices to be higher. Can you give me a concrete example of a poor market regulation though?
Damn it, every single good technology regulation idea I've seen in the past ten years, from universal cell phone chargers to browser choice in operating systems, has come from the EU. Why can't we stand up to big corporations here in the US?
Also, with C strings, you don't need to worry about counter overflows, and you can safely operate on a string when you don't have its beginning. (Consider strtokThe real "idiot" move was taking the same hunks of code from the age where everyone could trust each other, and trying to use it in an age where some people cannot be trusted.
Rewriting everything from scratch didn't seem to work too well for MULTICS people, the Hurd people, the Plan 9 people, and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, the No True Scotsman defense. Conservatives has failed miserably in government, so post hoc, you simply state that the people who failed weren't true conservatives.
Thoroughly debunked. You've proposed your theory, and it's a poor fit for the evidence. Too bad, because solar-cycle-driven climate change is a neat, tidy explanation that doesn't require us to do anything drastic, like raise somebody's taxes. Now we're left with conventional climate models to explain the evidence: care to try again?
Why would you jam the signal when you could proxy and filter it? Just set up a local base station inside the school. Phones will prefer to connect to that one over most distant stations. The school's station can then inspect all calls and allow only emergency ones through. (You could even implement policies like only allowing calls during lunch, or inter-class periods.)
The low-level, theory-side parts of psychology as are scientifically rigorous as it gets. (Ever hear of B.F. Skinner?) Psychologists working in these areas run experiments, compute correlations, and test hypothesis like anyone else.
On the other hand, the application side (i.e., therapy) is still chock full of "qualitative" research, unsupported speculation, and subjective interpretation. Psychological theory informs clinical work quite a bit, but there's inevitably a fudge factor involves when taking generalized results and apply them to individuals.
Still, patients (err, clients, or whatever the word is this week) ask for help, so psychologists are forced to fill in the blanks left by our rather incomplete theories using non-scientific methods. That's the core of OP view that psychology isn't a "real science". In reality, it is: it's just that therapy (by necessity) uses non-scientific ideas in addition to the results of psychology-the-science.
Will you guys just stop it already?
Face it: your side lost. Anthropogenic global warming is established fact. Do you also subscribe to Lamarkism, phrenoloy, abiogenic petroleum, and the luminous aether?
It's easy to poke a few isolated holes in any theory. You've made real progress when you're able to posit a theory that better explains the facts. Until then, you AGW deniers are behaving just like the other children in the room, the "intelligent design" advocates.
Put up or shut up.
Your "attack" works against any plain hash used a MAC. Good MACs, like HMAC, are not vulnerable to such trivial tampering: because an attacker does not have the secret key used to construct the original MAC, he can't create a valid MAC for his modified ciphertext.
The paper the author is implicitly mentioning, by the way, is Hugo Krawczyk's "The Order of Encryption and Authentication for Protecting Communications".
If Skein wins the competition, we get Threefish, a perfectly good block cipher, for free.
The cardinal sin of security is sacrificing safety for speed. It applies to all work, really, but in security, the effects are particularly harmful.
A CTR denialist? They still make you?
A nonce doesn't need to be secret or unpredictable, but only unique. You can just use a counter. If you need a unique start, you can use a large random number to start the sequence, and it's easy to modularize a good cryptographic RNG. (Not that it's necessarily easy to create a good RNG.) There are a variety of ways to generate a good nonce.
The only other reasonable alternative is the venerable CBC mode, but using a non-repeating IV (a nonce by another name) for that mode is also recommended, since reusing an IV can leak information about the first block. Sometimes you don't care, and in special circumstances when you can't generate a nonce, CBC may be the least bad option. But for general purpose use, you might as well start with CTR.
Maybe. Twofish is almost as fast as AES, and possibly more secure. Schneier has a lengthy discussion in Practical Cryptography on possible weaknesses in AES that are a result of its simple algebraic structure, and to this day there are no successful attacks against Twofish or its 64-bit-blocked ancestor Blowfish. Then again, AES has received more scrutiny.
Sorry, but fuck you. Any component developer is more than capable of administering his own machine. If he can't even do that, then what business does he have writing software?
Rubber, maybe. You can get by without a lot of rubber. but plastic? Plastic sticks around forever.
Well, you include a safety margin, of course. You decide what you want the probability of failure to be, run MTBF calculations on your equipment, and stock your inventory accordingly. Of course there's a chance of it all going wrong, but there always is. What you can do is run calculations and figure out what kind of equipment you'll need. Sure, there's always a risk of getting it wrong, but you can just build a safety margin into your numbers. It's all standard provisioning, really. It's just the scale that's unusual.
We already know colonization would be unfathomably expensive by our standards. So what? You haven't convinced me that you'd need so much extra equipment that you couldn't build a ship to carry it all.
Like many problems, your can be solved by just increasing the scale: with enough spare bits, enough spare farming bits, and so on, you have enough time to establish suitable infrastructure before your initial stocks run low. Assuming a sophisticated culture prepares for this kind of endeavor, I don't see any fundamental problems with colonization.
It's the exchange's job to provide liquidity, not Goldman Sachs'.
Oh, that's bullshit. The transaction tax will be low enough that occasional trades to shuffle money between investments won't be affected. The fees are aimed at front-running leeches who use algorithmic trading to skim the market hurt everyone else.
Well, they pay almost no taxes. Nevermind that it's because half of them are below the poverty line, THEY DON'T PAY TEH TAXES AND R TRU PATRIOTS. *collapses on a pile of Truck Nutz*
Which naturally leads to tax cuts to "starve the beast".
Budget deficit? Tax cuts.
Budget surplus? Tax cuts.
War too expensive? Tax cuts.
Poverty? Tax cuts.
Worsening education? Tax cuts.
Rising crime? Tax cuts.
Declining crime? Tax cuts.
Pollution? Tax cuts.
Sorry, but I prefer to live in a state with a functioning government that can actually provide for its citizens. Take a hike and go live in Somalia if you're so opposed to civilization.
Purchasing power parity? Are you kidding me? That's just per-capita GDP with a paint job. Here are RFK's immortal words on that subject:
Huh? That's incoherent. If four companies each charge the same for a message and they have identical margins, then their cost is the same. A lower uniforn margin applied to the same cost will result in a uniform price. Also, if you were to try that, companies would just doctor their margin figures to support a higher price.
The Sherman Antitrust Act already has a remedy for price fixing: the act made it a felony. All we need to do is enforce this 1898 piece of legislation.
The French have a higher standard of living than we do, so of course you can expect some prices to be higher. Can you give me a concrete example of a poor market regulation though?
Money may be speech according to the Supreme Court, but it's profane speech.
Damn it, every single good technology regulation idea I've seen in the past ten years, from universal cell phone chargers to browser choice in operating systems, has come from the EU. Why can't we stand up to big corporations here in the US?
In the early 2000s!? This happened to our organization last week! If you can, avoid Paypal like the plague.
#include <stdbool.h>
bool evil_string_p(const char* s, size_t n) { return memchr(s, 0, n); }
Also, with C strings, you don't need to worry about counter overflows, and you can safely operate on a string when you don't have its beginning. (Consider strtokThe real "idiot" move was taking the same hunks of code from the age where everyone could trust each other, and trying to use it in an age where some people cannot be trusted.
Rewriting everything from scratch didn't seem to work too well for MULTICS people, the Hurd people, the Plan 9 people, and so on.