Nope. There isn't enough energy in the Solar System from now until its heat death to brute-force a 128-bit key using theoretically ideal computers. It's possible that quantum computers could be used to halve the effective length of the key, which means that AES-256 cannot be brute-forced by a Kardashev Type II civilization. I consider such a key length adequate.
You're not going to break the cipher in a paltry few million years.
Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House. It's likely that the Democrats will take the house in 2018, so that's a possibility. It requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict and remove from office, and that's exceedingly unlikely. If the Democrats sweep all Senate races in 2018, they will not control nearly two-thirds of the Senate. Removing Trump from office would require a lot of Republican cooperation.
The GOP has basically fallen in line behind Trump. There's a solid core of maybe a fourth or a third of the electorate that's behind him, and they will not be swayed by any rational means. They're not enough to get a candidate elected, except in particular spots, but they are enough to sway a Republican primary. Any Republican senator who votes to convict Trump is in great danger of losing the Republican nomination to a Trump-supporting Republican.
Therefore, impeachment and conviction is extremely unlikely to happen.
Trump could be temporarily removed by the Twenty-Fifth Amendment process, but that process says that, if the removed President claims to be fit for duty again, that person is reinstated unless two-thirds of both the House and the Senate disagree.
Unless President Trump dies or is legitimately incapacitated, or decides to resign, we're stuck with him until January 21, 2021.
The election has been held, by electors selected according to the processes set by their state governments. The results have been accepted by Congress. It's legal. Any exposure of corruption in the process won't affect the constitutional reality.
There are no legal grounds to challenge the election now. There's grounds to complain about it, of course, and it's possible that people could be imprisoned for their activities during it, but that doesn't invalidate it.
(as long as the NSA can keep their private key list secret)
Ah, you have found the flaw in your plan. The NSA is not known for flawless performance in keeping secrets.
There's also the problem of controlling the NSA, and making sure it doesn't reveal any keys without a court order, given the secrecy they like. Or possible security breaches in the process, since the NSA will get a lot of requests.
FYI: the iPhone 5 and 5c were the last that had the countermeasures in flashable firmware. iPhones since have had a "secure enclave" that would do all the deciphering, with no possibility of reading the key from it by normal means, and doing its own counting of invalid passwords. I'm sure there's some way to break into them, but the security is much, much improved.
Violence is pretty clearly violence to anyone watching, it leaves marks, and everyone understands it. Besides, violence can directly hurt people and encryption can't.
It's much more important that people using violence be accountable than people using encryption.
Health insurance faces a problem called "adverse selection". What this means is that sick people want health insurance more than healthy people, and so the people who really want to sign up will be the most expensive. Insurance companies have to deal with that.
One way to deal is to exclude existing conditions, so that you can't retroactively insure yourself if you get sick. The effects of this are not good. It creates a class of people who essentially can't get health insurance and therefore can't get good health care. If they're on a policy that they had when they developed the condition, they're stuck on that policy, until the insurance company either cancels the policy because they cost too much or raises the premiums too high, or it's a work-related policy and someone loses his or her job because he or she can no longer perform due to illness.
Group coverage is the only way to avoid this problem. Given a group, all paying premiums, some people will cost a little and others will cost a lot, and it all balances out. for the insurance company. However, not everyone is part of a suitable group.
By expanding the group to include the entire population, covering from birth, we eliminate pre-existing conditions as a problem. We allow for the problem that some people will run up large medical bills by having healthy people in the pool. That way, people who are sick can get insurance and therefore health care.
Remove the individual mandate, and health insurance, and hence health care, becomes dramatically more expensive for the sick, and they won't be able to afford it. Opting out is the wrong phrase, as the price of insurance will force people out.
Repealing the ACA without provision for people with medical issues will kill people.
They tend to be in rows on the city streets. Every so often, there will be a block that's small commercial. I don't know the details, but these stores do stay in business.
Which is exactly the same as Facebook. Bitcoin and Facebook are widely recognized, and are valuable because of their network effects. There's no guarantee that Bitcoin or Facebook will be popular in 2025.
Even now we use dollars to judge the value of Bitcoin. Perhaps some day we will judge the value based on how many you need to buy a car (for example).
It's dangerous to list prices independently in two currencies. Suppose I offer to sell you a new car for $40K or 4 BTC. If the conversion rate strays from 1:10000, I'm going to be selling the cars at a lower price, one way or another. If a BTC goes to $8K, then my customers with dollars will convert them to BTC, and I'll be selling cars for $32K If it goes to $12K, then people with BTC sill sell them for dollars, and I'll be selling cars for 3.3333 BTC. If BTC is low, I'm getting BTC. If dollars are low, I'm getting dollars.
It's a lot safer to sell them for $40K and advertise that we accept BTC at the standard exchange rate.
Yeah, and if there's massive inflation of the value of a Bitcoin, there's a real temptation for people who got a lot early on to sell and crash the market. There's also a real temptation to not use Bitcoin and run it up that high and make hoarders rich.
There's nothing unique about Bitcoin. It's a cryptocurrency that has better acceptance than the others. It could be replaced easily.
In the end, the only retailers who can afford to navigate these regulations are big-box chain stores
Which completely fails to explain the numerous small storefronts I keep passing where I live. The malls are suffering, but most of the small buildings on the street seem to have some sort of going concern.
Sure, sure. And the turkey got fed in June, and in July and August, and October and early November, so the food just keeps coming.
Apple, by the way, makes stuff that people buy. It owns stuff. Some people think Apple will sell less stuff or at lower prices, and that hasn't happened. It will sometime.
Owning is a fairly safe way to make reasonable profit on your investment. You're extremely unlikely to get rich that way, but if you diversify and are willing to be patient during value dips you're extremely unlikely to lose significantly.
Trading stocks is a much higher-risk higher-gain practice. The big money is in trading them. Of course, the big money comes from lots of little investments, and unless there's a good reason why you should be receiving big money rather than losing the money so someone else can win big, it's not a sure thing. Invest some of your life savings in stock ownership. Don't spend more than you can afford to lose in day trading.
Actually, more jobs appear to require a degree than should, so getting a degree is valuable. Getting one in a STEM field is more valuable than in humanities, but humanities degrees are valuable.
Evaluate your potential debt. Making a large purchase and paying it off over time can be the way to go. Typically, you never want to pay interest on your credit card, but beyond that there's not may good generalizations.
Some of the directions from the herd lead to lots and lots of money. Others lead to bankruptcy. If you can tell the difference, go for it. Personally, I'm part of the herd. I have investments that I'm confident will appreciate over time (at least on a sufficiently long timescale). More importantly, I'm sure that, given diversification, I'm not going to get wiped out.
A lot of the terms you use would make no sense if the stock value was independent of the company value. People do hostile takeovers because they think that they can make the company more valuable. Insider trading is the illegal and unfair use of information about the company to predict what the stock will do - in other words, information about the company normally does affect the stock price in a more or less predictable manner. Overvalued? That suggests that the stock should have a particular value, which, it turns out, is based on the company.
If there was a disconnect, nobody would do a hostile takeover. Insider trading would not exist. You're looking at words that describe exceptions, and missing the fact that exceptions only exist where there is a rule.
not invested in their companies... because investing in the company requires issuing more shares.
Much of the value of stock is what someone else will pay for it. The primary (IPO) market is largely driven by what the investors think they might be able to get for the shares later on the secondary (exchange) market. It's true that, if I buy another hundred shares of, say, 3M, no money goes to 3M, but the person I bought it from is relying on people like me to buy it in the first place, and that works all the way back to the IPO.
Except for the part where people outside of our control can decide to print more fiat currency, and lowering the value of our savings accounts.
The money supply is considerably higher than the amount of currency, and the amount of currency and rate of inflation are done by adjusting the interest rates. There's no reason why Bitcoin couldn't be banked like regular dollars, and then the same would apply to it.
The stock market is accessible. Buy a fund that you think is likely to do well, buy into other funds so you're diversified, and that's all you have to do.
I wouldn't try to make a quick buck in the market. It sounds to me the equivalent of cutting myself with razor blades before jumping into a shark tank. However, stocks will go up over time. Not regularly, and not every stock, and it may take some patience, but they will as a whole go up.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. There isn't enough energy in the Solar System from now until its heat death to brute-force a 128-bit key using theoretically ideal computers. It's possible that quantum computers could be used to halve the effective length of the key, which means that AES-256 cannot be brute-forced by a Kardashev Type II civilization. I consider such a key length adequate.
You're not going to break the cipher in a paltry few million years.
Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House. It's likely that the Democrats will take the house in 2018, so that's a possibility. It requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict and remove from office, and that's exceedingly unlikely. If the Democrats sweep all Senate races in 2018, they will not control nearly two-thirds of the Senate. Removing Trump from office would require a lot of Republican cooperation.
The GOP has basically fallen in line behind Trump. There's a solid core of maybe a fourth or a third of the electorate that's behind him, and they will not be swayed by any rational means. They're not enough to get a candidate elected, except in particular spots, but they are enough to sway a Republican primary. Any Republican senator who votes to convict Trump is in great danger of losing the Republican nomination to a Trump-supporting Republican.
Therefore, impeachment and conviction is extremely unlikely to happen.
Trump could be temporarily removed by the Twenty-Fifth Amendment process, but that process says that, if the removed President claims to be fit for duty again, that person is reinstated unless two-thirds of both the House and the Senate disagree.
Unless President Trump dies or is legitimately incapacitated, or decides to resign, we're stuck with him until January 21, 2021.
The election has been held, by electors selected according to the processes set by their state governments. The results have been accepted by Congress. It's legal. Any exposure of corruption in the process won't affect the constitutional reality.
There are no legal grounds to challenge the election now. There's grounds to complain about it, of course, and it's possible that people could be imprisoned for their activities during it, but that doesn't invalidate it.
Ah, you have found the flaw in your plan. The NSA is not known for flawless performance in keeping secrets.
There's also the problem of controlling the NSA, and making sure it doesn't reveal any keys without a court order, given the secrecy they like. Or possible security breaches in the process, since the NSA will get a lot of requests.
FYI: the iPhone 5 and 5c were the last that had the countermeasures in flashable firmware. iPhones since have had a "secure enclave" that would do all the deciphering, with no possibility of reading the key from it by normal means, and doing its own counting of invalid passwords. I'm sure there's some way to break into them, but the security is much, much improved.
Violence is pretty clearly violence to anyone watching, it leaves marks, and everyone understands it. Besides, violence can directly hurt people and encryption can't.
It's much more important that people using violence be accountable than people using encryption.
Health insurance faces a problem called "adverse selection". What this means is that sick people want health insurance more than healthy people, and so the people who really want to sign up will be the most expensive. Insurance companies have to deal with that.
One way to deal is to exclude existing conditions, so that you can't retroactively insure yourself if you get sick. The effects of this are not good. It creates a class of people who essentially can't get health insurance and therefore can't get good health care. If they're on a policy that they had when they developed the condition, they're stuck on that policy, until the insurance company either cancels the policy because they cost too much or raises the premiums too high, or it's a work-related policy and someone loses his or her job because he or she can no longer perform due to illness.
Group coverage is the only way to avoid this problem. Given a group, all paying premiums, some people will cost a little and others will cost a lot, and it all balances out. for the insurance company. However, not everyone is part of a suitable group.
By expanding the group to include the entire population, covering from birth, we eliminate pre-existing conditions as a problem. We allow for the problem that some people will run up large medical bills by having healthy people in the pool. That way, people who are sick can get insurance and therefore health care.
Remove the individual mandate, and health insurance, and hence health care, becomes dramatically more expensive for the sick, and they won't be able to afford it. Opting out is the wrong phrase, as the price of insurance will force people out.
Repealing the ACA without provision for people with medical issues will kill people.
I'm talking about "The Virtue of Selfishness", her attempt to be serious.
They tend to be in rows on the city streets. Every so often, there will be a block that's small commercial. I don't know the details, but these stores do stay in business.
Which is exactly the same as Facebook. Bitcoin and Facebook are widely recognized, and are valuable because of their network effects. There's no guarantee that Bitcoin or Facebook will be popular in 2025.
Looks to me like plenty of people here disagree that shorting BTC is a good idea. The question is how much money they're willing to put up.
It's dangerous to list prices independently in two currencies. Suppose I offer to sell you a new car for $40K or 4 BTC. If the conversion rate strays from 1:10000, I'm going to be selling the cars at a lower price, one way or another. If a BTC goes to $8K, then my customers with dollars will convert them to BTC, and I'll be selling cars for $32K If it goes to $12K, then people with BTC sill sell them for dollars, and I'll be selling cars for 3.3333 BTC. If BTC is low, I'm getting BTC. If dollars are low, I'm getting dollars.
It's a lot safer to sell them for $40K and advertise that we accept BTC at the standard exchange rate.
Yeah, and if there's massive inflation of the value of a Bitcoin, there's a real temptation for people who got a lot early on to sell and crash the market. There's also a real temptation to not use Bitcoin and run it up that high and make hoarders rich.
There's nothing unique about Bitcoin. It's a cryptocurrency that has better acceptance than the others. It could be replaced easily.
Which completely fails to explain the numerous small storefronts I keep passing where I live. The malls are suffering, but most of the small buildings on the street seem to have some sort of going concern.
I've tried reading Rand's philosophy. Absolutely frightening that people would take it seriously.
Only a third? Less than that even? Who says we aren't making progress as a species?
Sure, sure. And the turkey got fed in June, and in July and August, and October and early November, so the food just keeps coming.
Apple, by the way, makes stuff that people buy. It owns stuff. Some people think Apple will sell less stuff or at lower prices, and that hasn't happened. It will sometime.
Owning is a fairly safe way to make reasonable profit on your investment. You're extremely unlikely to get rich that way, but if you diversify and are willing to be patient during value dips you're extremely unlikely to lose significantly.
Trading stocks is a much higher-risk higher-gain practice. The big money is in trading them. Of course, the big money comes from lots of little investments, and unless there's a good reason why you should be receiving big money rather than losing the money so someone else can win big, it's not a sure thing. Invest some of your life savings in stock ownership. Don't spend more than you can afford to lose in day trading.
Actually, more jobs appear to require a degree than should, so getting a degree is valuable. Getting one in a STEM field is more valuable than in humanities, but humanities degrees are valuable.
Evaluate your potential debt. Making a large purchase and paying it off over time can be the way to go. Typically, you never want to pay interest on your credit card, but beyond that there's not may good generalizations.
The Greater Fool theory of investment. I've always been a modest sort of guy, so I just lack faith that I'm not the greatest fool.
Some of the directions from the herd lead to lots and lots of money. Others lead to bankruptcy. If you can tell the difference, go for it. Personally, I'm part of the herd. I have investments that I'm confident will appreciate over time (at least on a sufficiently long timescale). More importantly, I'm sure that, given diversification, I'm not going to get wiped out.
A lot of the terms you use would make no sense if the stock value was independent of the company value. People do hostile takeovers because they think that they can make the company more valuable. Insider trading is the illegal and unfair use of information about the company to predict what the stock will do - in other words, information about the company normally does affect the stock price in a more or less predictable manner. Overvalued? That suggests that the stock should have a particular value, which, it turns out, is based on the company.
If there was a disconnect, nobody would do a hostile takeover. Insider trading would not exist. You're looking at words that describe exceptions, and missing the fact that exceptions only exist where there is a rule.
Much of the value of stock is what someone else will pay for it. The primary (IPO) market is largely driven by what the investors think they might be able to get for the shares later on the secondary (exchange) market. It's true that, if I buy another hundred shares of, say, 3M, no money goes to 3M, but the person I bought it from is relying on people like me to buy it in the first place, and that works all the way back to the IPO.
The money supply is considerably higher than the amount of currency, and the amount of currency and rate of inflation are done by adjusting the interest rates. There's no reason why Bitcoin couldn't be banked like regular dollars, and then the same would apply to it.
The stock market is accessible. Buy a fund that you think is likely to do well, buy into other funds so you're diversified, and that's all you have to do.
I wouldn't try to make a quick buck in the market. It sounds to me the equivalent of cutting myself with razor blades before jumping into a shark tank. However, stocks will go up over time. Not regularly, and not every stock, and it may take some patience, but they will as a whole go up.