I don't care about Moore's law. I want enduring encryption.
It is not possible for a Kardashev Type II civilization (one that uses all the energy from it's star) to brute-force a 128-bit key before it's star dies. Quantum encryption can halve the effective length of the key. Therefore, using a good cryptosystem with a 256-bit key should be adequate against anything we're likely to run into for a long time. Those worried about Kardashev Type III civilizations might want longer keys.
Asymmetric (public-key) ciphers are a different problem, and I don't know how to deal with those.
It's also possible that all ciphers will be solvable. All ciphers are in NP, and since we don't know if P = NP it's possible that all ciphers are in P, and in that case it's possible that we get usable breaks for all ciphers. I don't think this is likely, but if I'm worried about security from the NSA next century I have to consider it.
The other problem is that private parties can also get information, either from the government or using the government's methods. I'm less worried about the government reading my stuff than I am other people. I don't believe in systems where the government can read my communications and other organizations won't be able to.
The legal fiction is important. I haven't tried this, but apparently I can buy a lot of things that aren't legally guns and easily make a gun with a few metalworking tools. That means I can get one with no official investigation or official registration or any interaction with any government.
The FBI director said there was no precedent for criminal prosecution in cases like Clinton's. In a video clip someone against Clinton posted on Facebook, an obviously hostile Republican Congressman said that there was no precedent, but that he was afraid that when this was over there still would be no precedent (translation: he wanted Clinton prosecuted despite the lack of precedent). So far, nobody's posted a precedent.
Clinton did not deliberately put classified information on private servers. She didn't do a good job of keeping it off. In every case somebody's cited, in which there was actual criminal prosecution, the defendant deliberately put classified information where it didn't belong. I'm still waiting for an example of someone who did essentially what Clinton did and was criminally prosecuted. I'm not holding my breath.
If the emails were actually damaging, Clinton haters would be putting up incriminating parts and pointing to them. Instead, they simply talk about how bad they are. It looks to me like it's just more blind Clinton hate with no supporting evidence.
Clinton was part of a group of people who decided to let Russia buy the uranium company, partly as a gesture of goodwill towards Russia. At that time, Russia was being a lot friendlier, and there was good reason to encourage this. It turned out not to work, but it was a reasonable idea at the time, and Clinton was only one of several who made the decision.
I'm not familiar with the other two things you mention, but I'd like to see a lot more details from actually reputable sources before taking them seriously.
Putin has nothing to lose if Russian involvement becomes known- it's obvious that Trump's supporters won't care anyway, since they clap and cheer whenever Trump says nice things about Putin and Russia.
Actually, he does. Lots of people who might vote Trump or at least stay home will be offended by a clear Russian intervention, even those who like Putin. Moreover, if it becomes clear that Putin is behind this, there may be diplomatic repercussions. He's much better off if people just think he may have done it. That way, he looks strong but can't be retaliated against and it's not going to discourage the Trump followers.
Hitler had a lot going for him. His WWI record is excellent, according to what records we've got that we're at least moderately sure weren't changed. He showed intelligence, coolness under fire, and courage. He was a superb orator and politician. As a military commander, he wasn't bad as far as heads of state go. Churchill and Stalin certainly screwed things up at times, and Roosevelt was better only in that he stayed further away from direct command.
Hitler's big military command problems late in the war were that the military authorities thought they should surrender and undergo another Versailles-like treaty, which would be bad but survivable. Hitler believed that defeat would be the destruction of advanced civilization and the descent of the world into mongrel barbarianism, and so Hitler was willing to take big chances for a small chance to win and despised those who sought an unfavorable negotiated peace.
The scandal mongers are assiduous and single-minded. The presence of scandal says precisely nothing about whether it's true. The lack of evidence of wrongdoing suggests that the scandal mongers are pulling scandals out of their own asses.
That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, it's a conspiracy theorist thing.
Personally, I think it's not because Clinton is a Democrat, but more that she lacks Y chromosomes, and is one of the uppitiest women in US history. Of course, it might be that she's a very competent Democrat, so the Swift boaters and other liars target her. It's hard to tell.
Sure, since each of Trump, Sanders, Johnson, and Stein has been President of the US, a governor, and been politically active for decades? Who up-moderated you?
Regrettably, Clinton could only allocate security Congress authorized money for, and Congress cut her security budget over her objections. She was dealing with insufficient resources, and couldn't have sufficient security everywhere. It would appear that Congress was evil for refusing to beef up State Department security overall.
If you check, you'll find that Bill Clinton was held accountable for things related to his being a jerk to Paula Jones. You'll also find that the FBI director was distinctly not happy with Hillary's handling of her email, and statements relating to it, but it didn't warrant criminal prosecution (and nobody's come up with an example of criminal prosecution for anyone else doing similar things). If you're referring to the endless Benghazi hearings, it seems to me that if she did do something wrong they almost certainly would have caught her at it.
Very simply, people have been throwing baseless accusations at the Clintons for a long time, and it's easy to not be held accountable for something you didn't do and which there's no good evidence you did.
Left-leaning bias? Snopes does their best to be objective, and provides support for what they say. If you want me to believe they've got a significant bias, you can come up with specific examples that I can research. Otherwise, you could as easily be saying that you're unhappy because the world doesn't fit your ideological bias (which, regrettably, is very common with Republicans nowadays).
In other words, since the Clintons made a lot of money on speaking fees, they've obviously abused their political office? The fact that they have weaseled out of accusations that don't have actual evidence behind them isn't real impressive either. Bill got in legal trouble over a lawsuit that didn't actually allege he broke the law, so I'd think they're not nearly as slick as some people claim.
Obama made quite a few differences. He has made health insurance much more available, and health care much more affordable, in general. He has reduced the deficit massively, and the US economy is in quite good shape. You're picking one specific issue that Congress absolutely refused to let him fix. Although I don't agree with him on everything (particularly the TPP), he's generally done a good job.
There's no evidence that Clinton is interested in abolishing the 2nd, which has been trashed by previous administrations (most notably, I think, the Reagan administration).
Apparently, if you find nothing wrong in Clinton's emails, that's because Clinton is too smart to put wrongdoing in an email, and that's evidence that she's doing wrong?
What evidence I can find shows that Putin considers Trump a useful idiot, and is possibly intervening in the election to try to defeat Clinton. The evidence isn't all that convincing, but there really is no evidence that Putin considers Clinton useful.
Let's look at what Snopes labels as What's True: "Police who pulled over and killed Philando Castile reported they thought he might have resembled a suspect in an armed robbery case." The Snopes article discusses claims from "The Conservative Treehouse", pointing out that Castile was not a suspect, there is no credible evidence tying him to the robbery, and that he did have a concealed-carry permit. It emphasizes that there is no real evidence that Castile was involved in the robbery or was carrying illegally when stopped.
In short, Snopes seems to be telling the truth, and refuted claims from a specific source, which you haven't bothered to link to or provide evidence. Any implication that he was stopped on suspicion of armed robbery suggests that Castile was in fact a suspect.
You also seem awfully callous. The fact is that Castile resembled an armed robber, and apparently was legally carrying a weapon. That does not, repeat NOT, justify his being shot. The media coverage I remember is that of an innocent man who was trying to cooperate being shot and killed. Perhaps if the appropriate police had come up with some way to deal with people who are legally armed there would have been no media issue.
My sister-in-law was in a group of ten high school girls who kept in touch with each other as they got older. She's in her early fifties, and is either one of the two survivors or the only one. The high school was a nice one in a pleasant suburb, and there's no particular reason why any of the girls should have died early. Are you saying my sister-in-law is therefore suspicious?
If you were to take the information available from my posts, and assume my user name is indeed my first and last name concatenated, you could easily find a street address on the internet. Unless someone with an IRBM simply doesn't like me, the street address is more useful for finding my house than the exact latitude and longitude.
We don't want the Internet being a wireless mesh network.
Wireless data transmission has much more stringent limits than wired data transmission. I can get 1 Gb/s connection from the phone company (although I'm not going to get it unless and until I find 40 Mb/s and then 100 Mb/s insufficient)). Getting a gigabit connection with reasonable ping time over a wireless mesh network is going to be challenging at best. If my internet connectivity goes down, I have someone to call now, rather needing to figure which of my neighbors has screwed what up. Moreover, I don't see why I have to trust the network if it's centralized and mostly wired. It's got central listening points, but in a wireless mesh a lot of the nodes are going to be law enforcement of various types recording what they can pick up. As it is, TCP doesn't trust the network, but rather verifies transmission and receipt.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care about Moore's law. I want enduring encryption.
It is not possible for a Kardashev Type II civilization (one that uses all the energy from it's star) to brute-force a 128-bit key before it's star dies. Quantum encryption can halve the effective length of the key. Therefore, using a good cryptosystem with a 256-bit key should be adequate against anything we're likely to run into for a long time. Those worried about Kardashev Type III civilizations might want longer keys.
Asymmetric (public-key) ciphers are a different problem, and I don't know how to deal with those.
It's also possible that all ciphers will be solvable. All ciphers are in NP, and since we don't know if P = NP it's possible that all ciphers are in P, and in that case it's possible that we get usable breaks for all ciphers. I don't think this is likely, but if I'm worried about security from the NSA next century I have to consider it.
The other problem is that private parties can also get information, either from the government or using the government's methods. I'm less worried about the government reading my stuff than I am other people. I don't believe in systems where the government can read my communications and other organizations won't be able to.
The legal fiction is important. I haven't tried this, but apparently I can buy a lot of things that aren't legally guns and easily make a gun with a few metalworking tools. That means I can get one with no official investigation or official registration or any interaction with any government.
I actually doubt that. 300 lines of gcode would be plenty to start with one of those almost-pre-made receivers and do it the rest of the way.
Would 0.1% be reasonable as "almost never"? If I got shot on 0.1% of the days I've lived, I'd be full of holes.
The FBI director said there was no precedent for criminal prosecution in cases like Clinton's. In a video clip someone against Clinton posted on Facebook, an obviously hostile Republican Congressman said that there was no precedent, but that he was afraid that when this was over there still would be no precedent (translation: he wanted Clinton prosecuted despite the lack of precedent). So far, nobody's posted a precedent.
Clinton did not deliberately put classified information on private servers. She didn't do a good job of keeping it off. In every case somebody's cited, in which there was actual criminal prosecution, the defendant deliberately put classified information where it didn't belong. I'm still waiting for an example of someone who did essentially what Clinton did and was criminally prosecuted. I'm not holding my breath.
If the emails were actually damaging, Clinton haters would be putting up incriminating parts and pointing to them. Instead, they simply talk about how bad they are. It looks to me like it's just more blind Clinton hate with no supporting evidence.
Clinton was part of a group of people who decided to let Russia buy the uranium company, partly as a gesture of goodwill towards Russia. At that time, Russia was being a lot friendlier, and there was good reason to encourage this. It turned out not to work, but it was a reasonable idea at the time, and Clinton was only one of several who made the decision.
I'm not familiar with the other two things you mention, but I'd like to see a lot more details from actually reputable sources before taking them seriously.
Actually, he does. Lots of people who might vote Trump or at least stay home will be offended by a clear Russian intervention, even those who like Putin. Moreover, if it becomes clear that Putin is behind this, there may be diplomatic repercussions. He's much better off if people just think he may have done it. That way, he looks strong but can't be retaliated against and it's not going to discourage the Trump followers.
Hitler had a lot going for him. His WWI record is excellent, according to what records we've got that we're at least moderately sure weren't changed. He showed intelligence, coolness under fire, and courage. He was a superb orator and politician. As a military commander, he wasn't bad as far as heads of state go. Churchill and Stalin certainly screwed things up at times, and Roosevelt was better only in that he stayed further away from direct command.
Hitler's big military command problems late in the war were that the military authorities thought they should surrender and undergo another Versailles-like treaty, which would be bad but survivable. Hitler believed that defeat would be the destruction of advanced civilization and the descent of the world into mongrel barbarianism, and so Hitler was willing to take big chances for a small chance to win and despised those who sought an unfavorable negotiated peace.
The scandal mongers are assiduous and single-minded. The presence of scandal says precisely nothing about whether it's true. The lack of evidence of wrongdoing suggests that the scandal mongers are pulling scandals out of their own asses.
That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, it's a conspiracy theorist thing.
Personally, I think it's not because Clinton is a Democrat, but more that she lacks Y chromosomes, and is one of the uppitiest women in US history. Of course, it might be that she's a very competent Democrat, so the Swift boaters and other liars target her. It's hard to tell.
Sure, since each of Trump, Sanders, Johnson, and Stein has been President of the US, a governor, and been politically active for decades? Who up-moderated you?
Sure, Trump would have something to gain by killing him. He could tell the stupid people he appeals to that Clinton had the guy killed.
Regrettably, Clinton could only allocate security Congress authorized money for, and Congress cut her security budget over her objections. She was dealing with insufficient resources, and couldn't have sufficient security everywhere. It would appear that Congress was evil for refusing to beef up State Department security overall.
If you check, you'll find that Bill Clinton was held accountable for things related to his being a jerk to Paula Jones. You'll also find that the FBI director was distinctly not happy with Hillary's handling of her email, and statements relating to it, but it didn't warrant criminal prosecution (and nobody's come up with an example of criminal prosecution for anyone else doing similar things). If you're referring to the endless Benghazi hearings, it seems to me that if she did do something wrong they almost certainly would have caught her at it.
Very simply, people have been throwing baseless accusations at the Clintons for a long time, and it's easy to not be held accountable for something you didn't do and which there's no good evidence you did.
Left-leaning bias? Snopes does their best to be objective, and provides support for what they say. If you want me to believe they've got a significant bias, you can come up with specific examples that I can research. Otherwise, you could as easily be saying that you're unhappy because the world doesn't fit your ideological bias (which, regrettably, is very common with Republicans nowadays).
In other words, since the Clintons made a lot of money on speaking fees, they've obviously abused their political office? The fact that they have weaseled out of accusations that don't have actual evidence behind them isn't real impressive either. Bill got in legal trouble over a lawsuit that didn't actually allege he broke the law, so I'd think they're not nearly as slick as some people claim.
Obama made quite a few differences. He has made health insurance much more available, and health care much more affordable, in general. He has reduced the deficit massively, and the US economy is in quite good shape. You're picking one specific issue that Congress absolutely refused to let him fix. Although I don't agree with him on everything (particularly the TPP), he's generally done a good job.
There's no evidence that Clinton is interested in abolishing the 2nd, which has been trashed by previous administrations (most notably, I think, the Reagan administration).
Apparently, if you find nothing wrong in Clinton's emails, that's because Clinton is too smart to put wrongdoing in an email, and that's evidence that she's doing wrong?
What evidence I can find shows that Putin considers Trump a useful idiot, and is possibly intervening in the election to try to defeat Clinton. The evidence isn't all that convincing, but there really is no evidence that Putin considers Clinton useful.
Let's look at what Snopes labels as What's True: "Police who pulled over and killed Philando Castile reported they thought he might have resembled a suspect in an armed robbery case." The Snopes article discusses claims from "The Conservative Treehouse", pointing out that Castile was not a suspect, there is no credible evidence tying him to the robbery, and that he did have a concealed-carry permit. It emphasizes that there is no real evidence that Castile was involved in the robbery or was carrying illegally when stopped.
In short, Snopes seems to be telling the truth, and refuted claims from a specific source, which you haven't bothered to link to or provide evidence. Any implication that he was stopped on suspicion of armed robbery suggests that Castile was in fact a suspect.
You also seem awfully callous. The fact is that Castile resembled an armed robber, and apparently was legally carrying a weapon. That does not, repeat NOT, justify his being shot. The media coverage I remember is that of an innocent man who was trying to cooperate being shot and killed. Perhaps if the appropriate police had come up with some way to deal with people who are legally armed there would have been no media issue.
My sister-in-law was in a group of ten high school girls who kept in touch with each other as they got older. She's in her early fifties, and is either one of the two survivors or the only one. The high school was a nice one in a pleasant suburb, and there's no particular reason why any of the girls should have died early. Are you saying my sister-in-law is therefore suspicious?
If you were to take the information available from my posts, and assume my user name is indeed my first and last name concatenated, you could easily find a street address on the internet. Unless someone with an IRBM simply doesn't like me, the street address is more useful for finding my house than the exact latitude and longitude.
We don't want the Internet being a wireless mesh network.
Wireless data transmission has much more stringent limits than wired data transmission. I can get 1 Gb/s connection from the phone company (although I'm not going to get it unless and until I find 40 Mb/s and then 100 Mb/s insufficient)). Getting a gigabit connection with reasonable ping time over a wireless mesh network is going to be challenging at best. If my internet connectivity goes down, I have someone to call now, rather needing to figure which of my neighbors has screwed what up. Moreover, I don't see why I have to trust the network if it's centralized and mostly wired. It's got central listening points, but in a wireless mesh a lot of the nodes are going to be law enforcement of various types recording what they can pick up. As it is, TCP doesn't trust the network, but rather verifies transmission and receipt.