Okay, so you're looking at a bigger rocket with a bigger payload sent further out, carrying other things. Are you really saying that was more innovative and game-changing than putting Yuri Gagarin in orbit?
You want to look at marketing research and sales figures? We're not the smartphone target audience, and projecting from what we in general like to what's going to sell on the mass market is really iffy.
There will not be plainclothes agents keeping every library branch under surveillance. Besides, library catalogs are normally openly available information; what the libraries do not keep track of is client information. For example, you are very unlikely to be able to confirm that I checked out that last audiobook I listened to.
You realize that there are other countries with fewer guns than us and more gun violence, as well, right?
If fewer guns does mean less violent crime, then what you're saying is that there are outliers.
The guns aren't the problem; people wanting to kill each other in the first place is the problem.
Not quite. Guns provide a quick and easy-to-use way to maim and kill. If someone gets into a momentary fit of rage, that does make a difference. Also, having a handy, easy-to-use, relatively painless method of suicide increases the number of suicides.
The CDC agrees [cdc.gov], it would seem.
Wasn't the CDC forbidden to study gun violence?
Even in France, where private gun ownership is nearly nonexistent, well... sure they have a lot less gun violence. They just use trucks, instead.
Do they use trucks like people in the US use guns, or was there just one or two high-profile cases?
"no guns != less violence"?
Not with the studies I've seen. It's hard to know what to trust
In America you are liable for the car you got pushed into
We were informed that the lawsuit was dropped as soon as the judge saw the accident report. We had no problem whatsoever aside from having to replace our car.
They do use the excuse to raise your rates.
I've never had a policy that would raise rates for an accident that they didn't have to pay out money for.
I've been told that Khruschev was wearing both shoes during that incident, so it was a planned action. He was a lot more cool and calculating than he wanted to appear.
The Soviet Union was, by definition, second-world. That particular classification has been useless for decades now (my son has a college degree and a job, and is living independently, and postdates the Soviet Union by years).
Why do you restrict yourself to talking about loonie left nonsense? Either you're using a word unnecessarily, or you fail to see all the loonie right nonsense.
If you're pushed into the car in front of you, you're not liable. It happened to my wife once. Someone filed a complaint against her, and, since it we were having a horrible blizzard, it took a few days for a judge to see what happened and throw out the complaint.
At one point, the police called it a three-car accident, which got my wife a little miffed. It went from being a two-car accident to a four-car without an intermediate step.
Arguments work far better if the person you're talking to is likely to accept them. The FBI really doesn't seem to have a belief that people have rights that the FBI finds inconvenient, so the moral argument will be dismissed as SJW propaganda. Bringing up technical points and demanding the FBI justify itself technically has a much higher chance of working.
There are very few countries without armies. (IIRC, Luxembourg has a treaty with Belgium instead of its own army.) Yet other countries manage to have a lot fewer privately held guns and a lot less gun violence than we have.
If the baby is already out, what does it need with special protective laws? There's already laws about murder and malpractice.
How many laws do you want passed on a single issue? And where did you get the idea that the Feds have the constitutional authority over this (assuming that the birthing room isn't crossing the boundary between two states)?
Communication protocol in the US Pacific Fleet in WWII was that you have the real message preceded and followed by nonsense phrases separated by double letters. At the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Admiral Halsey's signal section got a message from Nimitz, top admiral in the Pacific: TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG WHERE REPEAT WHERE IS TASK FORCE THIRTY FOUR RR THE WORLD WONDERS. The signal section properly stripped out TURKEY TROTS TO WATER but not THE WORLD WONDERS, causing the question to read like a stinging rebuke, spurring Halsey to make yet another mistake in running the battle.
There's a story about a censor seeing an outgoing message "Papa is dead", changing it to "Papa is deceased", and seeing a message going the other way "Is Papa dead or deceased?". It does sound made-up.
You can buy hardware random number generators for a few hundred dollars (last I looked). Some work on radioactive decay, some on thermal noise. Assuming you're willing to trust a closed hardware device from someone else, generating the random bits is fairly easy.
No. Once you use fewer than N bits of key to encrypt N bits of data, you're not using a one-time pad. You're using something else, and you need to consider that carefully.
Using those bits to construct a key for a known secure cipher, like AES-256, is probably safe. (AES-256 is probably safe. There's no known attacks, there's not expected to be known attacks, and it can't be brute-forced short of a Kardashev Type III attacker.) Once you leave established cryptosystems, you're on our own, and you almost certainly don't know enough to pick one that's hard to crack. Book ciphers are reasonably easy to break.
Without continuing surveillance , it's going to be hard to figure out what the suspect references at the library. Librarians are very touchy about giving away information on their clients, and typically destroy all such info as soon as it's no longer needed.
If you have the means to generate adequately random numbers in large enough quantities, and a secure channel, and some way to avoid reusing part of a pad, you've got a time-deferred secure channel from one person to another. If you want to include a third person, make more pads. If two people transmit independently, they're likely to reuse part of the pad sometime.
What form is the pad to take? Paper books have the advantage that you can use part of one and tear out the pages used. However, they're bulky and not easy to use for machine encryption. USB sticks are easier to use, but erasing the used part of a pad is iffier. If the pad parts are not destroyed when used, it might be possible to decrypt older messages. If you're willing to use one-time pads, you probably don't want any older messages to be readable should you be busted and searched.
There have been uses for one-time pads. At one time, Soviet spies were sent out with pads (they were made by typists typing more-or-less random digits, which isn't completely random). I don't know of other uses.
(you'd have very few mass shootings if the crowd can shoot the crazy guy, which is why the vast majority have been in gun free zones)
Potential targets tend to gather in areas that get designated gun-free. When shooters are in areas that allow guns, the civilians with guns don't seem to be effective at shooting back. I need evidence to believe that civilians with guns deter or stop mass shootings.
Having an armed citizenry means approximately nothing to deter or stop organized military forces. It used to be that an armed citizenry was able to have some reasonable role, but WWII showed a lot of brave partisans losing to poorly trained, poorly equipped, poorly led regular forces with poor morale.
I'm going to suggest that you may not have "understandable to the average voter" down quite right.
Compare this to today's voting system: we fill out a bunch of paper ballots or use electronic voting systems. The votes get cast. Somebody else counts them, tells them how many there are. If the election officials are lying, they can get away with it. They can discard votes from the pile--no one will know. We don't recount votes by name; we don't all verify our own votes; there is no protection against fraud by the elections board in today's system. Even giving people a ballot receipt doesn't work, because you can't get a look at all votes, and the system can report the vote you cast without counting it. Once you have collusion at the central authority, your voting system is compromised.
That's why we have observers at the polling places, and tamper-evident seals on ballot boxes. In our state, we have tabulators, which collect ballots and count them. This leaves a record of how many votes were cast in that precinct, which can be checked against later counts. All handling of ballots is supervised by observers, normally including at least one from each major party. This doesn't produce tamper-proof voting (nothing can) but it does a good job of making it tamper-evident.
So, the votes get cast. In each precinct, there is now a tabulator that has been under observation the whole time. It reports on the totals. The totals for each precinct are sent to the State. In a certain number of randomly selected precincts, the votes are manually counted and compared to the machine counts, this being done with observers watching, just to check the tabulation. (There may be small differences, with ballots not filled out right.)
At this point, we have precinct totals. The state authorities will publish the election results down to the precinct level, so it's possible to spot-check precincts and do the addition if you don't trust the state authorities. We have sealed ballot boxes with the ballots in them. Nobody's had a chance to get at the ballots unobserved. If someone comes up with a way to tamper with them, the machine count will be significantly off, triggering an investigation. Such tampering carries the risk of facing felony charges for relatively minor changes in the overall voting.
If the race isn't really close, we can live with a little inaccuracy. If it is close, we can do a full manual recount. This involves bringing sealed ballot boxes out of storage, examining the seals with observers present, and doing manual counting while observed. Large discrepancies between this and the initial counts will be suspect and investigated.
Everything about this is understandable to the average voter. If there are visible shenanigans, at least one observer will raise the alarm. If the boxes are tampered with, the seals will show it. If not, well, it's possible to lose boxes, but in that case the initial tabulation can be used. It isn't possible to undetectably fudge the overall total. This is about as secure as we're going to get.
This completely eliminates password confusion and lost USB keys. The voter shows up, is identified in some manner, and votes with all materials supplied by the polling place. (Where I live, we sign in under our names. If someone were to try to vote for me, that someone would arrive either earlier or later. If later, my name's already down there. If earlier, I show my ID to prove that I'm me and inform the election judges and observers.)
Overall, I still prefer traditional paper voting. Your ideas, while interesting, don't strike me as the right way to do things, partly because it's too technical for most people. You also don't seem to quite grasp what can be done to make paper voting secure.
iPhone batteries are replaceable. Apple will charge me $79, which is a whole lot less than the cost of a new phone. iFixit will sell me tools, instructions, and battery for $25. They aren't easily user-replaceable, which isn't real important for something that's likely to last three or four years.
Customers don't specifically want batteries that aren't easily user-replaceable, but they want thinness and battery life, and they don't care about exactly how to change the battery in three years.
Meanwhile, iPhones without the headphone jack are selling nicely. Not quite what I expected, but there's multiple reasons I'm not in marketing.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so you're looking at a bigger rocket with a bigger payload sent further out, carrying other things. Are you really saying that was more innovative and game-changing than putting Yuri Gagarin in orbit?
Almost all automotive parts are designed to be serviced, yes. Not necessarily by me, the owner, who has a socket set and a few other tools.
Logic is math. Trigonometry is math. Arithmetic operations are very basic math.
If you taught yourself trig, you're not bad at math.
You want to look at marketing research and sales figures? We're not the smartphone target audience, and projecting from what we in general like to what's going to sell on the mass market is really iffy.
There will not be plainclothes agents keeping every library branch under surveillance. Besides, library catalogs are normally openly available information; what the libraries do not keep track of is client information. For example, you are very unlikely to be able to confirm that I checked out that last audiobook I listened to.
If fewer guns does mean less violent crime, then what you're saying is that there are outliers.
Not quite. Guns provide a quick and easy-to-use way to maim and kill. If someone gets into a momentary fit of rage, that does make a difference. Also, having a handy, easy-to-use, relatively painless method of suicide increases the number of suicides.
Wasn't the CDC forbidden to study gun violence?
Do they use trucks like people in the US use guns, or was there just one or two high-profile cases?
Not with the studies I've seen. It's hard to know what to trust
We were informed that the lawsuit was dropped as soon as the judge saw the accident report. We had no problem whatsoever aside from having to replace our car.
I've never had a policy that would raise rates for an accident that they didn't have to pay out money for.
That's my old anecdotal data, though.
I've been told that Khruschev was wearing both shoes during that incident, so it was a planned action. He was a lot more cool and calculating than he wanted to appear.
Assuming the UK can get a reasonable free trade agreement with the EU. Economically, the UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK.
The Soviet Union was, by definition, second-world. That particular classification has been useless for decades now (my son has a college degree and a job, and is living independently, and postdates the Soviet Union by years).
Why do you restrict yourself to talking about loonie left nonsense? Either you're using a word unnecessarily, or you fail to see all the loonie right nonsense.
If you're pushed into the car in front of you, you're not liable. It happened to my wife once. Someone filed a complaint against her, and, since it we were having a horrible blizzard, it took a few days for a judge to see what happened and throw out the complaint.
At one point, the police called it a three-car accident, which got my wife a little miffed. It went from being a two-car accident to a four-car without an intermediate step.
Arguments work far better if the person you're talking to is likely to accept them. The FBI really doesn't seem to have a belief that people have rights that the FBI finds inconvenient, so the moral argument will be dismissed as SJW propaganda. Bringing up technical points and demanding the FBI justify itself technically has a much higher chance of working.
There are very few countries without armies. (IIRC, Luxembourg has a treaty with Belgium instead of its own army.) Yet other countries manage to have a lot fewer privately held guns and a lot less gun violence than we have.
If the baby is already out, what does it need with special protective laws? There's already laws about murder and malpractice.
How many laws do you want passed on a single issue? And where did you get the idea that the Feds have the constitutional authority over this (assuming that the birthing room isn't crossing the boundary between two states)?
Do you have an actual point, or are you merely saying that this stupidity isn't new?
Communication protocol in the US Pacific Fleet in WWII was that you have the real message preceded and followed by nonsense phrases separated by double letters. At the Battle of Leyte Gulf, Admiral Halsey's signal section got a message from Nimitz, top admiral in the Pacific: TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG WHERE REPEAT WHERE IS TASK FORCE THIRTY FOUR RR THE WORLD WONDERS. The signal section properly stripped out TURKEY TROTS TO WATER but not THE WORLD WONDERS, causing the question to read like a stinging rebuke, spurring Halsey to make yet another mistake in running the battle.
There's a story about a censor seeing an outgoing message "Papa is dead", changing it to "Papa is deceased", and seeing a message going the other way "Is Papa dead or deceased?". It does sound made-up.
You can buy hardware random number generators for a few hundred dollars (last I looked). Some work on radioactive decay, some on thermal noise. Assuming you're willing to trust a closed hardware device from someone else, generating the random bits is fairly easy.
No. Once you use fewer than N bits of key to encrypt N bits of data, you're not using a one-time pad. You're using something else, and you need to consider that carefully.
Using those bits to construct a key for a known secure cipher, like AES-256, is probably safe. (AES-256 is probably safe. There's no known attacks, there's not expected to be known attacks, and it can't be brute-forced short of a Kardashev Type III attacker.) Once you leave established cryptosystems, you're on our own, and you almost certainly don't know enough to pick one that's hard to crack. Book ciphers are reasonably easy to break.
Without continuing surveillance , it's going to be hard to figure out what the suspect references at the library. Librarians are very touchy about giving away information on their clients, and typically destroy all such info as soon as it's no longer needed.
If you have the means to generate adequately random numbers in large enough quantities, and a secure channel, and some way to avoid reusing part of a pad, you've got a time-deferred secure channel from one person to another. If you want to include a third person, make more pads. If two people transmit independently, they're likely to reuse part of the pad sometime.
What form is the pad to take? Paper books have the advantage that you can use part of one and tear out the pages used. However, they're bulky and not easy to use for machine encryption. USB sticks are easier to use, but erasing the used part of a pad is iffier. If the pad parts are not destroyed when used, it might be possible to decrypt older messages. If you're willing to use one-time pads, you probably don't want any older messages to be readable should you be busted and searched.
There have been uses for one-time pads. At one time, Soviet spies were sent out with pads (they were made by typists typing more-or-less random digits, which isn't completely random). I don't know of other uses.
Potential targets tend to gather in areas that get designated gun-free. When shooters are in areas that allow guns, the civilians with guns don't seem to be effective at shooting back. I need evidence to believe that civilians with guns deter or stop mass shootings.
Having an armed citizenry means approximately nothing to deter or stop organized military forces. It used to be that an armed citizenry was able to have some reasonable role, but WWII showed a lot of brave partisans losing to poorly trained, poorly equipped, poorly led regular forces with poor morale.
I'm going to suggest that you may not have "understandable to the average voter" down quite right.
That's why we have observers at the polling places, and tamper-evident seals on ballot boxes. In our state, we have tabulators, which collect ballots and count them. This leaves a record of how many votes were cast in that precinct, which can be checked against later counts. All handling of ballots is supervised by observers, normally including at least one from each major party. This doesn't produce tamper-proof voting (nothing can) but it does a good job of making it tamper-evident.
So, the votes get cast. In each precinct, there is now a tabulator that has been under observation the whole time. It reports on the totals. The totals for each precinct are sent to the State. In a certain number of randomly selected precincts, the votes are manually counted and compared to the machine counts, this being done with observers watching, just to check the tabulation. (There may be small differences, with ballots not filled out right.)
At this point, we have precinct totals. The state authorities will publish the election results down to the precinct level, so it's possible to spot-check precincts and do the addition if you don't trust the state authorities. We have sealed ballot boxes with the ballots in them. Nobody's had a chance to get at the ballots unobserved. If someone comes up with a way to tamper with them, the machine count will be significantly off, triggering an investigation. Such tampering carries the risk of facing felony charges for relatively minor changes in the overall voting.
If the race isn't really close, we can live with a little inaccuracy. If it is close, we can do a full manual recount. This involves bringing sealed ballot boxes out of storage, examining the seals with observers present, and doing manual counting while observed. Large discrepancies between this and the initial counts will be suspect and investigated.
Everything about this is understandable to the average voter. If there are visible shenanigans, at least one observer will raise the alarm. If the boxes are tampered with, the seals will show it. If not, well, it's possible to lose boxes, but in that case the initial tabulation can be used. It isn't possible to undetectably fudge the overall total. This is about as secure as we're going to get.
This completely eliminates password confusion and lost USB keys. The voter shows up, is identified in some manner, and votes with all materials supplied by the polling place. (Where I live, we sign in under our names. If someone were to try to vote for me, that someone would arrive either earlier or later. If later, my name's already down there. If earlier, I show my ID to prove that I'm me and inform the election judges and observers.)
Overall, I still prefer traditional paper voting. Your ideas, while interesting, don't strike me as the right way to do things, partly because it's too technical for most people. You also don't seem to quite grasp what can be done to make paper voting secure.
iPhone batteries are replaceable. Apple will charge me $79, which is a whole lot less than the cost of a new phone. iFixit will sell me tools, instructions, and battery for $25. They aren't easily user-replaceable, which isn't real important for something that's likely to last three or four years.
Customers don't specifically want batteries that aren't easily user-replaceable, but they want thinness and battery life, and they don't care about exactly how to change the battery in three years.
Meanwhile, iPhones without the headphone jack are selling nicely. Not quite what I expected, but there's multiple reasons I'm not in marketing.
Doesn't sound like an imbecile to me.