You haven't seen anyone using "BSD's back scratcher" because what it actually means is that it was made from BSD wood. Some people like seeing their wood carved into back scratchers and seeing their name in the booklet everyone throws away without reading, I don't get it, but I don't have a problem with it. Why they feel the need to complain that those who insist that back scratchers made from their wood come with schematics ready for laser cutting are somehow less helpful is beyond me.
OP was selectively emphasizing their quote to support the argument that only the full key can be considered a clue to the key, this is not the case outside of perfect implementations. It's the difference between determining that a one-time pad was (attempted to be, if one insists on defining away errors) used and giving up because it's impossible to decrypt and attempting to crack it on the basis that knowing the definition doesn't tell you everything about the message in front of you.
So, Debian was not in fact generating weakened DSA keys when they messed up the RNG in OpenSSL? The spec requires proper entropy, thus the keys though seemingly compatible weren't DSA keys at all?
All cakes are perfect, there is no such thing as a chewy cake as it falls outside of the definition. It's impossible to make a cake wrong, it's only possible to not make a cake. In fact, it's impossible to do anything wrong, there are no true errors.
It's like saying that long division performed with an error is not long division any more, and that therefore it's impossible to get wrong results with long division. Then furthermore defending such a position on the basis that "division" is right in the name and getting incorrect results means that you weren't dividing at all, but rather something else entirely.
And since it doesn't have anything regarding the nature of the pad in the name it doesn't matter. Semantically though you can read it as "cleartext only needs to be padded once" just as well, which is why the semantic argument is nitpicking. It's either possible to misapply one-time pads or it isn't, that one misapplication might be implied in the name doesn't change that.
You are of course right, a "Scotsman" who ever set foot outside of Scotland wouldn't be a true Scotsman no more, it would take the Scot out of them and that's clearly in the name.
If you tried to bake a cake with a recipe and/or knowledge of what ingredients go into a cake and how to put them together, but mis-measured the eggs/used high-protein flour and so ended up with a shitty cake I would cry no-true-Scotsman when someone said you weren't making a cake.
Your citation is incomplete. Key reuse is one way to weaken the encoding without forking over the key itself, though this needs multiple messages encoded with the same key. Less than perfectly random sources can be another attack vector. "Used properly" is not just about protecting the key.
Wind and solar are imminently scalable, the problem is coordination/storage. Nuclear is mainframes, expensive, inflexible points of failure, but easy to deal with. Wind and solar are your blade servers, you can produce as much energy as you can plop them down, but they need a coordinated grid (inc. pumping water for hydro plants when things peak for base load).
Care to elaborate how we're supposed to deal with the physical heat nuclear will put out? They share that problem with fossils and we are approaching usage rates where it might matter.
The most important thing is to stop being so damn inefficient, cheap energy (whether more efficient or unaccounted externalities) is actually counterproductive in solving this problem. Energy needs to be expensive enough for people to stop wasting it.
It's been in inflation, not deflation. You did show, however, that people would still actively produce something that's value was virtually certain to drop rapidly, congratulations.
Pseudonymity with an arbitrary number pseudonyms that are all completely independent (you can't swap money between your accounts privately), not anonymity.
All bitcoin transactions are publicly recorded, it's a cornerstone of the protocol. The only secrecy is that you are pseudonymous as a function of being identified by a public key.
So the average person doesn't understand 300dpi, but knowing a specific definiton for a term that isn't self descriptive is assumed? If you can teach them what retina means in the context of displays you can teach 300dpi just as well. In short, yes it is marketing, not to identify the tech, but to distinguish a non-distinction in the customer's mind.
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't seen anyone using "BSD's back scratcher" because what it actually means is that it was made from BSD wood. Some people like seeing their wood carved into back scratchers and seeing their name in the booklet everyone throws away without reading, I don't get it, but I don't have a problem with it. Why they feel the need to complain that those who insist that back scratchers made from their wood come with schematics ready for laser cutting are somehow less helpful is beyond me.
Freezing shouldn't ruin the crust if you defrost on the counter and put it in a hot oven for a few as needed.
Seriously, if you don't like Omnifarious' comment, move on. No need to make a fuss about it!
OP was selectively emphasizing their quote to support the argument that only the full key can be considered a clue to the key, this is not the case outside of perfect implementations. It's the difference between determining that a one-time pad was (attempted to be, if one insists on defining away errors) used and giving up because it's impossible to decrypt and attempting to crack it on the basis that knowing the definition doesn't tell you everything about the message in front of you.
So, Debian was not in fact generating weakened DSA keys when they messed up the RNG in OpenSSL? The spec requires proper entropy, thus the keys though seemingly compatible weren't DSA keys at all?
All cakes are perfect, there is no such thing as a chewy cake as it falls outside of the definition. It's impossible to make a cake wrong, it's only possible to not make a cake. In fact, it's impossible to do anything wrong, there are no true errors.
It's like saying that long division performed with an error is not long division any more, and that therefore it's impossible to get wrong results with long division. Then furthermore defending such a position on the basis that "division" is right in the name and getting incorrect results means that you weren't dividing at all, but rather something else entirely.
And since it doesn't have anything regarding the nature of the pad in the name it doesn't matter. Semantically though you can read it as "cleartext only needs to be padded once" just as well, which is why the semantic argument is nitpicking. It's either possible to misapply one-time pads or it isn't, that one misapplication might be implied in the name doesn't change that.
You are of course right, a "Scotsman" who ever set foot outside of Scotland wouldn't be a true Scotsman no more, it would take the Scot out of them and that's clearly in the name.
If you tried to bake a cake with a recipe and/or knowledge of what ingredients go into a cake and how to put them together, but mis-measured the eggs/used high-protein flour and so ended up with a shitty cake I would cry no-true-Scotsman when someone said you weren't making a cake.
Yes, otherwise there is no possibility of consider improper use at all.
No, you're not using it properly, no reason to define it away with true-Scotsmanning (would apply to the random part just as well anyway).
Your citation is incomplete. Key reuse is one way to weaken the encoding without forking over the key itself, though this needs multiple messages encoded with the same key. Less than perfectly random sources can be another attack vector. "Used properly" is not just about protecting the key.
That's private sector efficency for you.
You carpetbomb scadinavia with your systems. When the demo groups have reached a stalemate your system can be considered tapped out.
And how efficient?
Wind and solar are imminently scalable, the problem is coordination/storage. Nuclear is mainframes, expensive, inflexible points of failure, but easy to deal with. Wind and solar are your blade servers, you can produce as much energy as you can plop them down, but they need a coordinated grid (inc. pumping water for hydro plants when things peak for base load).
Care to elaborate how we're supposed to deal with the physical heat nuclear will put out? They share that problem with fossils and we are approaching usage rates where it might matter.
The most important thing is to stop being so damn inefficient, cheap energy (whether more efficient or unaccounted externalities) is actually counterproductive in solving this problem. Energy needs to be expensive enough for people to stop wasting it.
How about the actual warming that nuclear does?
Have you looked at the price of the thing? It might have the same name, but it is in the ultrabook market.
It's been in inflation, not deflation. You did show, however, that people would still actively produce something that's value was virtually certain to drop rapidly, congratulations.
Pseudonymity with an arbitrary number pseudonyms that are all completely independent (you can't swap money between your accounts privately), not anonymity.
All bitcoin transactions are publicly recorded, it's a cornerstone of the protocol. The only secrecy is that you are pseudonymous as a function of being identified by a public key.
Next time read the whole spec sheet, including viewing angles.
So the average person doesn't understand 300dpi, but knowing a specific definiton for a term that isn't self descriptive is assumed? If you can teach them what retina means in the context of displays you can teach 300dpi just as well. In short, yes it is marketing, not to identify the tech, but to distinguish a non-distinction in the customer's mind.
I'm sure they'd be happy to get the same deal as the legal system, which is to say lawyers and judges.