Perhaps we could address the macho heteronormative culture that leads, amongst other things, to unsafe workplaces. Oh wait, that's already something feminism is arguing for. Never mind.
No, you're completely missing my point. Specific taxes are not intended to pay for specific items of spending (as a rule). Ideally, a tax, should be efficient, fair, harmless and easy to collect, which is why sales/VAT/income taxes are so popular. Balancing a government budget (which again, you're confusing with a household budget) has nothing to do with what it is that is taxed.
Bit once you're in that position, why wouldn't the programme maker simply sell the program directly? For example, the fifth season of Breaking Bad came pretty close to not getting made; if the channel had dropped it and the makers had simply distributed it online, I somehow suspect it wouldn't have done too badly.
Oh, and I would invite you to decide on what is a feasible number of guesses per second - let's say a million trillion (10^18). That would reduce the time taken to only 3.2e71 years. Which is, by the way, only a few jillion times longer than the current age of the universe.
There are 50! possible passwords formed by the bills, yes. I admit that this makes a massive difference to my analysis: now you're talking on the order of 10^53 years. Ramp it up to a trillion guesses a second and you're down to 10^44 years. As for the practicalities, it's not perfect, but it is at least plausible, and I struggle to see that you're going to prove that the pile is as-found.
One can generate guesses at any rate, but it depends entirely on the encryption scheme how quickly you can test them. And I would point out that 10^100 is a little bit more entropy than a typical password of ~100^10 characters.
I was trying to point out how fucking ridiculous your initial assertion was. Throw Africa to the lions? You're an idiot. You have literally no idea what you're saying and yet you keep flapping your jaw.
Rape insurance is not a thing. And the police would not tell you that your car had, in fact, not been stolen.
The point is that women ALREADY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for not getting raped. The complaint is that when a woman is discovered to have not followed one of these myriad bullshit rules is that the rapist is then somehow not culpable, or she is seen as being partly culpable. Women don't need lectured on personal safety. They do need people like you to not lecture them on how "rape isn't a special case".
The first thing I thought when I saw the summary was "multiple comparisons". Then I read it. Basically they shovelled a heap of shit into R and picked out the biggest numbers. Yawn. NEXT!
However, no-one would question that what actually occurred was, in fact, theft. No-one would ask whether the car owner wanted it to happen. No-one would have suggested the victim should have had a less attractive car.
In case you're not sure about this, women are already pretty aware that dark alleys are not a good place to be at 2am. It really doesn't help to suggest that they should modify their behaviour further.
That you equate those things is exactly the problem. Thanks for your cogent, if unwitting, demonstration of the problem that female victims of sexual assault face. Hint: women are not going around screaming "rape me".
Nobody objects to women learnng useful skills like self-defence. What they object to is lack of such skills being used to blame the victim: "she shouldn't have waked down that street at that time of night".
Though it's also possible for the supplier to be a pain in the ass if they so choose. Turning round and threatening to sue for breach of implied contract and refusing to allow access can fuck up the upstream chain quite badly, especially if production is sufficiently specialised.
A small study with interesting effects is necessary before you carry out a large study. But since you're such an expert, it's likely that you knew that, because of correlation.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't wait to read some hate-filled slashdotter's pathetic tirade against women. Have at it, chaps.
Would you mind outlining your qualifications in genetics that qualify you to make sweeping statements about peer-reviewed research?
[Citation needed]
Perhaps we could address the macho heteronormative culture that leads, amongst other things, to unsafe workplaces. Oh wait, that's already something feminism is arguing for. Never mind.
No, you're completely missing my point. Specific taxes are not intended to pay for specific items of spending (as a rule). Ideally, a tax, should be efficient, fair, harmless and easy to collect, which is why sales/VAT/income taxes are so popular. Balancing a government budget (which again, you're confusing with a household budget) has nothing to do with what it is that is taxed.
There are revenues, which have sources, and spending commitments. You seem to be confusing them. Hypothecation is not, generally speaking, a thing.
You try offering agile services in a cyclical correlated market that requires multi-year massive upfront capital investment, smarty-pants.
You're suggesting shooting anyone that tries to cross the border of a land area the size of Central Europe? LOL.
But on the other hand, people that actually know what they're talking about say travel bans are counter-productive and hence bullshit. Who to believe?
Bit once you're in that position, why wouldn't the programme maker simply sell the program directly? For example, the fifth season of Breaking Bad came pretty close to not getting made; if the channel had dropped it and the makers had simply distributed it online, I somehow suspect it wouldn't have done too badly.
If Amazon ever stopped investing its profits in investing in growing its business, it would be spitting off eyewatering amounts of cash.
That stuff is why they invented pivot tables.
Oh, and I would invite you to decide on what is a feasible number of guesses per second - let's say a million trillion (10^18). That would reduce the time taken to only 3.2e71 years. Which is, by the way, only a few jillion times longer than the current age of the universe.
There are 50! possible passwords formed by the bills, yes. I admit that this makes a massive difference to my analysis: now you're talking on the order of 10^53 years. Ramp it up to a trillion guesses a second and you're down to 10^44 years. As for the practicalities, it's not perfect, but it is at least plausible, and I struggle to see that you're going to prove that the pile is as-found.
One can generate guesses at any rate, but it depends entirely on the encryption scheme how quickly you can test them. And I would point out that 10^100 is a little bit more entropy than a typical password of ~100^10 characters.
I guess it depends what you consider reasonable, though.
I was trying to point out how fucking ridiculous your initial assertion was. Throw Africa to the lions? You're an idiot. You have literally no idea what you're saying and yet you keep flapping your jaw.
Rape insurance is not a thing. And the police would not tell you that your car had, in fact, not been stolen. The point is that women ALREADY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for not getting raped. The complaint is that when a woman is discovered to have not followed one of these myriad bullshit rules is that the rapist is then somehow not culpable, or she is seen as being partly culpable. Women don't need lectured on personal safety. They do need people like you to not lecture them on how "rape isn't a special case".
The first thing I thought when I saw the summary was "multiple comparisons". Then I read it. Basically they shovelled a heap of shit into R and picked out the biggest numbers. Yawn. NEXT!
In case you're not sure about this, women are already pretty aware that dark alleys are not a good place to be at 2am. It really doesn't help to suggest that they should modify their behaviour further.
That you equate those things is exactly the problem. Thanks for your cogent, if unwitting, demonstration of the problem that female victims of sexual assault face. Hint: women are not going around screaming "rape me".
What you are suggesting is literally as ridiculous as shutting down California because of a school shooting in New York.
Nobody objects to women learnng useful skills like self-defence. What they object to is lack of such skills being used to blame the victim: "she shouldn't have waked down that street at that time of night".
Though it's also possible for the supplier to be a pain in the ass if they so choose. Turning round and threatening to sue for breach of implied contract and refusing to allow access can fuck up the upstream chain quite badly, especially if production is sufficiently specialised.
A small study with interesting effects is necessary before you carry out a large study. But since you're such an expert, it's likely that you knew that, because of correlation.