Reverting backups can be done without access to the plaintext of the document. The backup admin doesn't have to have the same access as the admin who sets up the key in the first place. Access control can be set up to keep the number of admins with access to the plaintext of classified data to a minimum.
It's perfectly possible to run backups without being able to read all the data. Per-file encryption is an easy answer, you can back up the encrypted versions without being able to decrypt them. Or just full disk encryption, and back up the entire thing every time. Sure, that's expensive in terms of storage, but it's effective and separates the access of the backup administrator and the user. A designer/administrator who fails to design such security into a system that requires it is incompetent.
To "fire" something can mean to light it on fire. To "fire" a gun was originally lighting the powder charge on fire. Firing the NSA would certainly be good for America. Congress should get started on that.
There are two issues, energy storage and coil quality. Capacitors aren't good for long-term energy storage due to dielectric leakage. The work coils have to be good (and the barrel strong) to prevent them from self-destructing due to the forces imparted by firing.
Well, 3D printing the whole thing would be hard (very complex shape) but you could potentially print the stock core, and nylon is a popular material for whips. I doubt one could print paracord with current technology, but a spinning/braiding machine could be made to make the cords from nylon, then weave them into a whip. After all, the cords are braided to begin with. Strand drops would be an interesting problem to automate.
<shameless plug>I made a tutorial on nylon whipmaking, http://www.instructables.com/id/Making-a-Paracord-Whip/</shameless plug>
The pen input IS far, far worse than the Wacom's. The Surface pen input is touching or not touching, the Wacom's pens detect pressure, angle, and have some buttons on the pen to allow mode/brush changes. A Surface pen is like a ball-point with one pressure, while a Wacom pen is like a nib pen. They're very different tools. The Surface's pen is essentially just a mouse that's held differently, so there's not much advantage to an artist.
There are no errors. The quantities cease to exist in any meaningful sense. The computer network IS an "observer" for the purposes of QM. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is just an application of the Fourier uncertainty principle to quantum wavefunctions. You have to find a way around the Fourier uncertainty principle to find a way around the Heisenberg principle. A simple example: If we have a function (say, probability that a particle is in a location in 1 dimension) that is zero everywhere except over some interval, where it's a constant value less than 1, then we can represent the position probability with a rectangular function. The momentum is the Fourier transform of the position function, so it will be a sinc function. The narrower the rectangular function (fewer possible positions) the wider the sinc function (more possible momenta.) In the ultimate case, one would know the position exactly, the rectangle would have no width, and you'd get a delta function for position. The Fourier transform of a delta function is a constant value, so for a perfectly known position the particle would have all possible momenta, at the same time. The reverse is also true, for a perfectly well-defined momentum the particle would be "spread out" over the entire universe at once*.
* Planck's constant actually provides a limit on how precisely you can know either value, so they don't go to infinity, but they do "spread out" as described.
No, it's an inherent mathematical problem related to the way quanta work. There are no particles, just quanta. Quanta are represented by wave functions, which is where the uncertainty actually lies. Doing rapid alternating measurements of position and momentum doesn't help, as it's still not the position and momentum at the exact same time. Simultaneity is a tricky concept, and even if you had a perfect frame of reference for it you'd still have the two measuring systems interfere with each other. Even if they didn't it would still be impossible, because the underlying problem isn't that you can't measure the momentum well if you know the position exactly, it's that the momentum becomes undefined. Likewise, if you know the momentum exactly the quantum will have no defined position.
You seem to misunderstand the source of the uncertainty in Heisenberg's principle. The unknown energy of the photon (or other observation method) is not the source of the problem, it's inherent. The Fourier uncertainty principle relates any function and its Fourier transform. The more concentrated a function is the more spread its Fourier transform, and position and momentum in QM are related by the Fourier transform. So the more precisely you measure the position, the less precisely you know the momentum.
"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such [is] the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology…. I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return." -- Senator Frank Church, who chaired the Senate committee that led the investigation into past abuses by the NSA at the time the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was signed into law (1978.)
The 2nd Amendment is irrelevant to rebellions when the state's knowledge is overwhelming.
Or a Sten. You can make one with not much more than sheet metal, a drill, and a hacksaw. The barrel is the only "hard" bit to make, and even that isn't terribly hard to get working at a basic level.
Right you are. Internal resistance is between 300 and 1000 ohms. By Ohm's law,d 1k Ohm load on a 5v source will draw 5mA, and a 300 Ohm load will draw 16.67mA. Nowhere near enough to cause death. Stopping the heart takes about 100mA, and causing the heart to enter ventricular fibrillation requires 500-1000mA. Higher currents will again stop the heart. A stopped heart is actually easier to treat than fibrillation, since CPR can keep it going. Assuming a low internal resistance across the heart about 30v DC is required for sufficient current to stop the heart. So if you take 6+ USB chargers, wire them in series, and THEN touch the outputs to salty wet skin you might die.
A computer without programs to run on it is pretty useless. Some come built in, some are added after the fact, but they're all just computer programs. "Apps" are the entire point of having a smartphone. Having a good set of them available, both by default and as additional downloads one of the main reasons computer platforms succeed. People use Windows on desktops because it runs their programs. Macs and Linux are less popular, because the same programs aren't all available. People buy game consoles that have games, and don't buy the ones that don't have games available. People buy phones with a good set of usable apps, and don't buy the ones without. Calling them "apps" or "applications" or "programs" is just semantics.
Well, it was first discovered by doing math on digital computers. Simple systems can have complex behaviors, and complex systems can have simple behaviors. Indeed, mapping the internet by traffic and related content shows fractal-like behavior. The underlying systems are simple, and the resulting entity is exceedingly complex.
Even very simple systems can be beyond the understanding of humans. The logistic map is a simple example of something that can be understood in many ways, but not all. With many initial conditions the output is chaotic and effectively unpredictable. We can make predictions about the long-term behavior, but can't tell exactly what that behavior will be.
Simple systems can exhibit complex behavior, and complex systems can exhibit simple behavior. The rules of Chess are much more complex than the rules of Conway's Game of Life, yet the Game of Life is far, far more complex than chess. In fact it's Turing-complete, and one could create a chess-playing program within the Game of Life (but not the other way around.)
There's a difference between something being chaotic and being magical. Neither system would be fully understandable, but the latter is a much more extraordinary claim that no one here has expressed.
It can be very, very hard to tell if a system can experience chaotic behaviors just by looking at the "rules" of that system. The Horseshoe Map is a piecewise _linear_ system that exhibits chaotic behavior. The rules of the Internet are far more complex, and ruling out all chaotic behavior from them is effectively impossible. One can't conclude that a system is simple just because a system's rules are simple.
Let's say there are about 1000 terrorists in the US at any given time (likely a vast overestimate.) There are about 300,000,000 non-terrorist people in the US (319 million total US population as of the last census.) Let's assume a hypothetical test for being a terrorist is given to everyone in the US, which detects 99.9% of all terrorists, and gets false positives 0.001% of the time. 999 terrorists will be caught by the test. 1 will go free. 3000 innocent people will be caught as terrorists.
That's part of why blanket testing/surveillance/TSA style airport security and similar mechanisms don't work well: they lose the real results in a flood of false positives. And that's with an unrealistically low false-positive rate, and an unrealistically high number of actual terrorists in the US.
Panasonic, Nippon Chemicon, and Cornell-Dubilier are my favorites. I agree that it's almost always the cheap electrolytics drying out that causes the issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Reverting backups can be done without access to the plaintext of the document. The backup admin doesn't have to have the same access as the admin who sets up the key in the first place. Access control can be set up to keep the number of admins with access to the plaintext of classified data to a minimum.
It's perfectly possible to run backups without being able to read all the data. Per-file encryption is an easy answer, you can back up the encrypted versions without being able to decrypt them. Or just full disk encryption, and back up the entire thing every time. Sure, that's expensive in terms of storage, but it's effective and separates the access of the backup administrator and the user. A designer/administrator who fails to design such security into a system that requires it is incompetent.
To "fire" something can mean to light it on fire. To "fire" a gun was originally lighting the powder charge on fire. Firing the NSA would certainly be good for America. Congress should get started on that.
Oh, wait, Keepass can do that. Both via auto-type hotkeys, and via plugins (PassIFox for Firefox with KeePassHTTP for Keepass)
There are two issues, energy storage and coil quality. Capacitors aren't good for long-term energy storage due to dielectric leakage. The work coils have to be good (and the barrel strong) to prevent them from self-destructing due to the forces imparted by firing.
Well, 3D printing the whole thing would be hard (very complex shape) but you could potentially print the stock core, and nylon is a popular material for whips. I doubt one could print paracord with current technology, but a spinning/braiding machine could be made to make the cords from nylon, then weave them into a whip. After all, the cords are braided to begin with. Strand drops would be an interesting problem to automate.
<shameless plug>I made a tutorial on nylon whipmaking, http://www.instructables.com/id/Making-a-Paracord-Whip/</shameless plug>
To gain my trust, put a play button for your audio. If I want to hear the sound, I can click the button.
I stand corrected. In that case it could be much more useful.
The pen input IS far, far worse than the Wacom's. The Surface pen input is touching or not touching, the Wacom's pens detect pressure, angle, and have some buttons on the pen to allow mode/brush changes. A Surface pen is like a ball-point with one pressure, while a Wacom pen is like a nib pen. They're very different tools. The Surface's pen is essentially just a mouse that's held differently, so there's not much advantage to an artist.
There are no errors. The quantities cease to exist in any meaningful sense. The computer network IS an "observer" for the purposes of QM.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is just an application of the Fourier uncertainty principle to quantum wavefunctions. You have to find a way around the Fourier uncertainty principle to find a way around the Heisenberg principle.
A simple example:
If we have a function (say, probability that a particle is in a location in 1 dimension) that is zero everywhere except over some interval, where it's a constant value less than 1, then we can represent the position probability with a rectangular function. The momentum is the Fourier transform of the position function, so it will be a sinc function. The narrower the rectangular function (fewer possible positions) the wider the sinc function (more possible momenta.) In the ultimate case, one would know the position exactly, the rectangle would have no width, and you'd get a delta function for position. The Fourier transform of a delta function is a constant value, so for a perfectly known position the particle would have all possible momenta, at the same time. The reverse is also true, for a perfectly well-defined momentum the particle would be "spread out" over the entire universe at once*.
* Planck's constant actually provides a limit on how precisely you can know either value, so they don't go to infinity, but they do "spread out" as described.
No, it's an inherent mathematical problem related to the way quanta work. There are no particles, just quanta. Quanta are represented by wave functions, which is where the uncertainty actually lies. Doing rapid alternating measurements of position and momentum doesn't help, as it's still not the position and momentum at the exact same time. Simultaneity is a tricky concept, and even if you had a perfect frame of reference for it you'd still have the two measuring systems interfere with each other. Even if they didn't it would still be impossible, because the underlying problem isn't that you can't measure the momentum well if you know the position exactly, it's that the momentum becomes undefined. Likewise, if you know the momentum exactly the quantum will have no defined position.
You seem to misunderstand the source of the uncertainty in Heisenberg's principle. The unknown energy of the photon (or other observation method) is not the source of the problem, it's inherent. The Fourier uncertainty principle relates any function and its Fourier transform. The more concentrated a function is the more spread its Fourier transform, and position and momentum in QM are related by the Fourier transform. So the more precisely you measure the position, the less precisely you know the momentum.
"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such [is] the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology…. I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
-- Senator Frank Church, who chaired the Senate committee that led the investigation into past abuses by the NSA at the time the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was signed into law (1978.)
The 2nd Amendment is irrelevant to rebellions when the state's knowledge is overwhelming.
Or a Sten. You can make one with not much more than sheet metal, a drill, and a hacksaw. The barrel is the only "hard" bit to make, and even that isn't terribly hard to get working at a basic level.
Right you are. Internal resistance is between 300 and 1000 ohms. By Ohm's law,d 1k Ohm load on a 5v source will draw 5mA, and a 300 Ohm load will draw 16.67mA. Nowhere near enough to cause death. Stopping the heart takes about 100mA, and causing the heart to enter ventricular fibrillation requires 500-1000mA. Higher currents will again stop the heart. A stopped heart is actually easier to treat than fibrillation, since CPR can keep it going. Assuming a low internal resistance across the heart about 30v DC is required for sufficient current to stop the heart. So if you take 6+ USB chargers, wire them in series, and THEN touch the outputs to salty wet skin you might die.
A computer without programs to run on it is pretty useless. Some come built in, some are added after the fact, but they're all just computer programs. "Apps" are the entire point of having a smartphone. Having a good set of them available, both by default and as additional downloads one of the main reasons computer platforms succeed. People use Windows on desktops because it runs their programs. Macs and Linux are less popular, because the same programs aren't all available. People buy game consoles that have games, and don't buy the ones that don't have games available. People buy phones with a good set of usable apps, and don't buy the ones without. Calling them "apps" or "applications" or "programs" is just semantics.
Unless you lick the thing, have particularly sweaty hands, an open wound, or something else to bypass skin resistance.
The problem is that most of the counterfeit charger makers DO silkscreen the logos on for profit.
Fuses and circuit breakers protect against overcurrent, not overvoltage. You want a MOV or similar device.
Well, it was first discovered by doing math on digital computers. Simple systems can have complex behaviors, and complex systems can have simple behaviors. Indeed, mapping the internet by traffic and related content shows fractal-like behavior. The underlying systems are simple, and the resulting entity is exceedingly complex.
The Lorenz system is an artifact made of known parts acting in known ways, yet it produces unpredictable outputs. Magic is not involved.
Even very simple systems can be beyond the understanding of humans. The logistic map is a simple example of something that can be understood in many ways, but not all. With many initial conditions the output is chaotic and effectively unpredictable. We can make predictions about the long-term behavior, but can't tell exactly what that behavior will be.
Simple systems can exhibit complex behavior, and complex systems can exhibit simple behavior. The rules of Chess are much more complex than the rules of Conway's Game of Life, yet the Game of Life is far, far more complex than chess. In fact it's Turing-complete, and one could create a chess-playing program within the Game of Life (but not the other way around.)
There's a difference between something being chaotic and being magical. Neither system would be fully understandable, but the latter is a much more extraordinary claim that no one here has expressed.
It can be very, very hard to tell if a system can experience chaotic behaviors just by looking at the "rules" of that system. The Horseshoe Map is a piecewise _linear_ system that exhibits chaotic behavior. The rules of the Internet are far more complex, and ruling out all chaotic behavior from them is effectively impossible. One can't conclude that a system is simple just because a system's rules are simple.
No, you use a safe pry tool, some fancy screwdrivers, and a soldering iron to remove the battery from an iphone.
Let's say there are about 1000 terrorists in the US at any given time (likely a vast overestimate.) There are about 300,000,000 non-terrorist people in the US (319 million total US population as of the last census.) Let's assume a hypothetical test for being a terrorist is given to everyone in the US, which detects 99.9% of all terrorists, and gets false positives 0.001% of the time.
999 terrorists will be caught by the test. 1 will go free.
3000 innocent people will be caught as terrorists.
That's part of why blanket testing/surveillance/TSA style airport security and similar mechanisms don't work well: they lose the real results in a flood of false positives. And that's with an unrealistically low false-positive rate, and an unrealistically high number of actual terrorists in the US.
Panasonic, Nippon Chemicon, and Cornell-Dubilier are my favorites. I agree that it's almost always the cheap electrolytics drying out that causes the issues.