when you add them up it's probably not a practical question
Seeing as how they are probabilities, shouldn't we be multiplying?
It depends on the problem.
If it's about events which cannot happen at the same time, but any of the event suffices, you have to add the probabilities up (e.g. the probability of a car being a Ford is the sum of the probability of it being a Model T, the probability of it being a Fiesta, etc. (you have to add up all the different Ford models' probabilities)).
If it's about independent events which both have to happen, you have to multiply (e.g. the probability of a meteorite hitting you is the probability of there being a meteorite coming down to earth, and the probability of you being at that place).
More importantly, you'd get questions why you encrypted Alice in Wonderland, and would still be suspected to have some other data hidden in there. If you have a fake decryption, you should have a plausible explanation why you encrypted that data in the first place.
What about hiding data in ping packets? This would probably not be practical for large amounts of data (and would need a reliable Internet connection, although some of the reliability could be built in a higher-level protocol built on it), but I guess not many people monitor ICMP traffic, therefore this should have a good chance to go unnoticed.
However, no matter how well your secret files are hidden, there's one thing which may still reveal you: The very existence of the steganography program on your hard disk. Therefore your steganography executable should be hidden, too. One possible way to hide it in would be to have the same executable do something completely different, unless you give a special, secret option to turn it into the steganography program.
Well, the point is: If you send someone pictures of your last holiday, someone noticing that will not suspect anything, and will not even think of applying tests to the pictures you sent. Therefore if you hide information in them, you will not need plausible deniability, because nobody will question you.
Data encrypted with a one-time pad looks completely random. Provably. Indeed, if you were given the pad and the encrypted data, you'd not be able to say which is which.
Well, isn't it obvious? A gigabit service is one which lets you transfer a gigabit of data per month. So don't be surprised if your 4 gigabyte DVD image needs 32 months to download.:-)
Comcast has throttled any P2P traffic - regardless of your plan - into the ground. The FCC has told them numerous times to stop, they told the FCC to fuck off. Numerous times.
Then the FCC should revoke Comcast's license, plain and simple.
From the summary: Optus's ad campaign promises 'supersonic' speeds Well, I'd expect that. I wouldn't like a ping time of 6 seconds per kilometer distance!
And you're going to guess wrong. I'm not American, so I'm voting for neither, but if I were, and I'd decide to vote for one of the large parties, it most probably would be the Democrats.
but the truth is that things are pretty much that way.
Well, his choice of words was what clearly revealed him: For Republicans he used words with clearly negative connotation ("FUD", "corporatism"), while for the Democrats he used words with positive connotation ("more just", "we can do better" [actually, the Republicans also think they can do better; they just disagree on the meaning of "better"]).
A way to make the same statement the original poster did, but without the bias in the language, would be:
"Republicans have run for quite a while of warning about dangers for America, tax cuts for the rich and supporting corporations. Whereas Democrats have run more on emotions and the notion that wealth should be more equally distributed."
Slashdot Mirror
Using your data, I get a streaming rate for HD of 9.4 Mb/s. Which is more than many people get on their DSL.
On the other hand, I guess claustrophobics will like it.
Do they also build warp drives into their planes, and offer flights around the sun?
Maybe they hide that with an invisibility cloak.
Maybe it's aluminum ceramics?
... at which time the Pope's astronomer takes the chance to become a martyr: "You only can eat me if I may baptize you first!"
You can molest a goat. You cannot baptize it.
Judging from our behaviour down here on earth, I'm not so sure.
But maybe it's only holy water which kills them. :-)
when you add them up it's probably not a practical question
Seeing as how they are probabilities, shouldn't we be multiplying?
It depends on the problem.
If it's about events which cannot happen at the same time, but any of the event suffices, you have to add the probabilities up (e.g. the probability of a car being a Ford is the sum of the probability of it being a Model T, the probability of it being a Fiesta, etc. (you have to add up all the different Ford models' probabilities)).
If it's about independent events which both have to happen, you have to multiply (e.g. the probability of a meteorite hitting you is the probability of there being a meteorite coming down to earth, and the probability of you being at that place).
In all other cases, neither is correct.
Anyone who has ever had closer contact to an animal knows that animals have very clearly a free will.
How do you test if something/someone has a soul?
More importantly, you'd get questions why you encrypted Alice in Wonderland, and would still be suspected to have some other data hidden in there. If you have a fake decryption, you should have a plausible explanation why you encrypted that data in the first place.
What about hiding data in ping packets? This would probably not be practical for large amounts of data (and would need a reliable Internet connection, although some of the reliability could be built in a higher-level protocol built on it), but I guess not many people monitor ICMP traffic, therefore this should have a good chance to go unnoticed.
However, no matter how well your secret files are hidden, there's one thing which may still reveal you: The very existence of the steganography program on your hard disk. Therefore your steganography executable should be hidden, too. One possible way to hide it in would be to have the same executable do something completely different, unless you give a special, secret option to turn it into the steganography program.
What about naming it "OneTimePad"? And when asked, tell them you haven't used it yet, or you would have deleted it.
But what if my giant porn collection is exactly the information I'm trying to hide? ;-)
Well, the point is: If you send someone pictures of your last holiday, someone noticing that will not suspect anything, and will not even think of applying tests to the pictures you sent. Therefore if you hide information in them, you will not need plausible deniability, because nobody will question you.
Data encrypted with a one-time pad looks completely random. Provably. Indeed, if you were given the pad and the encrypted data, you'd not be able to say which is which.
Well, isn't it obvious? A gigabit service is one which lets you transfer a gigabit of data per month. So don't be surprised if your 4 gigabyte DVD image needs 32 months to download. :-)
Then the FCC should revoke Comcast's license, plain and simple.
From the summary:
Optus's ad campaign promises 'supersonic' speeds
Well, I'd expect that. I wouldn't like a ping time of 6 seconds per kilometer distance!
But if we capture that methane, we can burn it to produce energy.
Is that translation also valid for the non-literal meaning (the one which is used here)?
...that Pinky & The Brain was fiction.
Given that you used the past tense, you're clearly right.
And you're going to guess wrong. I'm not American, so I'm voting for neither, but if I were, and I'd decide to vote for one of the large parties, it most probably would be the Democrats.
Well, his choice of words was what clearly revealed him: For Republicans he used words with clearly negative connotation ("FUD", "corporatism"), while for the Democrats he used words with positive connotation ("more just", "we can do better" [actually, the Republicans also think they can do better; they just disagree on the meaning of "better"]).
A way to make the same statement the original poster did, but without the bias in the language, would be:
"Republicans have run for quite a while of warning about dangers for America, tax cuts for the rich and supporting corporations. Whereas Democrats have run more on emotions and the notion that wealth should be more equally distributed."