Any state should be able to nullify any federal law within its borders, but I definitely like the idea of a federal law being annulled throughout the land if >50% of states do so.
Repealing the 17th amendment would be an important correction, and an excellent way to start getting the states involved again.
Well let's see... There are 100 tiles in a Scrabble game, which means there are 100!, or about 2^524 different permutations. Which is, of course, 2^492 times greater than 2^32.
The duplicated tiles will take that down quite a bit, but nowhere approaching a number as low as 2^32.
Also, of course, no pseudorandom number generator can produce more distinct sequences, starting from the point of initialization, than there are distinct seed values it may be initialized with. Thus, a generator that has 1024 bits of internal state but which is initialized with a 32-bit seed can still only produce 2^32 different permutations right after initialization. It can produce more permutations if one exercises the generator a great many times before starting to use it for generating permutations, but this is a very inefficient way of increasing randomness: supposing one can arrange to use the generator a random number of up to a billion, say 2^30 for simplicity, times between initialization and generating permutations, then the number of possible permutations is still only 2^62.
Well, it's true that I haven't taken the time to sit down and figure out whether or not that works. But if it does, perhaps you could correct the Wikipedia page? Or am I misreading something.
For example, the built-in pseudorandom number generator provided by many programming languages and/or libraries may often have only 32 bits of internal state, which means it can only produce 2^32 different sequences of numbers. If such a generator is used to shuffle a deck of 52 playing cards, it can only ever produce a very small fraction of the 52! ~= 2^225.6 possible permutations. It's impossible for a generator with less than 226 bits of internal state to produce all the possible permutations of a 52-card deck. It has been suggested that confidence that the shuffle is unbiased can only be attained with a generator with more than about 250 bits of state.
Maybe it's because computers with 32-bit random number generators (pseudo or otherwise) can only generate 2^32 different permutations, which is a tiny fraction of the possible permutations of a deck of cards or a set of Scrabble tiles.
You're deciding for people when it's okay to drive what kind of vehicle, defining particular exceptions which of course, if codified into law, would need layers upon layers of clarifications and loopholes. What exactly is a professional driver? What's a commercial purpose? Am I only allowed to use designated commercial vehicles for designated commercial purposes?
Don't worry about it, just sit there and assume that you in your almighty wisdom can in fact account for every scenario, just taking for granted that everyone should bow to your will.
This isn't a game of Civilization and it isn't a banana republic. In a free society we don't handle things that way.
I'm assuming you're talking about the fate where those countries pass us by because we've deliberately shackled ourselves, because we felt guilty about our own success?
Logical failure. I said what makes Fox different is that they hire people who aren't liberals. I didn't say they ONLY hire people who aren't liberals. I'm saying that their "competition" hires (almost) exclusively liberals.
And plenty of liberals watch Fox News. Just because you assert something doesn't make it true.
1) This is an AP story, Breitbart didn't write it.
2) If you don't think 2,000 pages that nobody has read which rebuilds 17% of the US economy according to the whims of a couple hundred Democrats doesn't represent an oppressive regime, then I don't know what to tell you.
It's not a selling point, it's a starting point. It's a sine qua non. For an application like video on the Web, nothing non-free can even enter the conversation.
Right, but look at the parent post by Qzukk: what happens when the user removes the password from that key?
The server can't tell whether the key being presented had a password or not. My question is: can I make SSH require the user to enter his system password, even after he has presented a perfectly valid and allowed key?
Slashdot Mirror
Amen!
Any state should be able to nullify any federal law within its borders, but I definitely like the idea of a federal law being annulled throughout the land if >50% of states do so.
Repealing the 17th amendment would be an important correction, and an excellent way to start getting the states involved again.
Well let's see... There are 100 tiles in a Scrabble game, which means there are 100!, or about 2^524 different permutations. Which is, of course, 2^492 times greater than 2^32.
The duplicated tiles will take that down quite a bit, but nowhere approaching a number as low as 2^32.
Whoops, meant to quote this one:
Also, of course, no pseudorandom number generator can produce more distinct sequences, starting from the point of initialization, than there are distinct seed values it may be initialized with. Thus, a generator that has 1024 bits of internal state but which is initialized with a 32-bit seed can still only produce 2^32 different permutations right after initialization. It can produce more permutations if one exercises the generator a great many times before starting to use it for generating permutations, but this is a very inefficient way of increasing randomness: supposing one can arrange to use the generator a random number of up to a billion, say 2^30 for simplicity, times between initialization and generating permutations, then the number of possible permutations is still only 2^62.
Well, it's true that I haven't taken the time to sit down and figure out whether or not that works. But if it does, perhaps you could correct the Wikipedia page? Or am I misreading something.
For example, the built-in pseudorandom number generator provided by many programming languages and/or libraries may often have only 32 bits of internal state, which means it can only produce 2^32 different sequences of numbers. If such a generator is used to shuffle a deck of 52 playing cards, it can only ever produce a very small fraction of the 52! ~= 2^225.6 possible permutations. It's impossible for a generator with less than 226 bits of internal state to produce all the possible permutations of a 52-card deck. It has been suggested that confidence that the shuffle is unbiased can only be attained with a generator with more than about 250 bits of state.
Maybe it's because computers with 32-bit random number generators (pseudo or otherwise) can only generate 2^32 different permutations, which is a tiny fraction of the possible permutations of a deck of cards or a set of Scrabble tiles.
You're deciding for people when it's okay to drive what kind of vehicle, defining particular exceptions which of course, if codified into law, would need layers upon layers of clarifications and loopholes. What exactly is a professional driver? What's a commercial purpose? Am I only allowed to use designated commercial vehicles for designated commercial purposes?
Don't worry about it, just sit there and assume that you in your almighty wisdom can in fact account for every scenario, just taking for granted that everyone should bow to your will.
This isn't a game of Civilization and it isn't a banana republic. In a free society we don't handle things that way.
Well if the House of Commons can't find it, it doesn't exist!
"Architecture" is a noun. "Design" is a verb (or a noun). There's no "architectured".
I'm assuming you're talking about the fate where those countries pass us by because we've deliberately shackled ourselves, because we felt guilty about our own success?
Sure. The way to avoid it is to not do that.
Logical failure. I said what makes Fox different is that they hire people who aren't liberals. I didn't say they ONLY hire people who aren't liberals. I'm saying that their "competition" hires (almost) exclusively liberals.
And plenty of liberals watch Fox News. Just because you assert something doesn't make it true.
Drudge and Breitbart are Fox News on the Web.
What do you expect to happen in 5 years when people catch on? Those will become the top two sites on the Web, like Fox News is on cable?
You seem to hate them because they actually hire people who aren't liberals. Apparently "non-biased" means "100% liberal".
I don't have to read it. A government takeover of healthcare is wrong on its face.
And one of the main reasons is that it requires laws thousands of pages long that nobody can possibly understand.
1) This is an AP story, Breitbart didn't write it.
2) If you don't think 2,000 pages that nobody has read which rebuilds 17% of the US economy according to the whims of a couple hundred Democrats doesn't represent an oppressive regime, then I don't know what to tell you.
But they can only do that because of state enforcement.
Perhaps "Libraries of Congress"?
Not with an X25-E.
They're all sane.
Apache is popular. MySQL is popular. Pretty much any Web or DB server will eat these right up.
Please don't make me remember that joke. I remembered two words of it once, and spent several weeks in hospital.
No. Read.
Wow, good info. Well here's hoping it gets merged soon!
It's not a selling point, it's a starting point. It's a sine qua non. For an application like video on the Web, nothing non-free can even enter the conversation.
Right, but look at the parent post by Qzukk: what happens when the user removes the password from that key?
The server can't tell whether the key being presented had a password or not. My question is: can I make SSH require the user to enter his system password, even after he has presented a perfectly valid and allowed key?
That, or turning the car off. Heck, there's always "the other way of stopping": throw it in reverse!
Is there a way to make SSH require both a key AND a password?