Every time you and your fraidy-cat buddies jumps 4. The less you actually know about laws, law enforcement, bombs, bomb tactics, terrorists, and suicide bombers, the more vocal you should be to complain and condemn those that do know. Failure to follow this rule means you're a pooh-pooh-head and your karma will be negatively effected accordingly.
I see you are a subscriber to option #4.
Believe it or not, law enforcement reacted to bomb threats all the time, before 9/11. The only difference between then and now is people like you that have no idea what you're talking about and now want to punish law enforcement for properly and professionally doing their job. And oh ya, the threat is actually higher.
In other words, your denial and refusal to admit bad things happen in the world, long before 9/11 was captured on film, means you are unfit to comment let alone do so publicly. Worse, YOU are the one giving in to the terrorists, afraid people doing their job means you might have to face the world.
Guess what, the world is a scary place and has been long before 9/11.
Boo! It's time to wake up. And you probably wonder why GW spits on the constitution to do his job? Because people like you ensure he can't get the job done any other way. Do I support him? No. Can I explain it? Yes. The answer is simple; people like you.
According to most slashdotters, unless it were to actually explode then your concerns are completely invalid and unwarranted. Furthermore, any official which takes actions to address a legitimate concern should be fired.
When posting on slashdot you need to remember the following rules: 1. If it didn't explode, it's not a bomb - including explosives which didn't explode. 2. Caring for public safety is not your job. Your job is to complain about those that keep you safe. 3. Terrorists don't exists. Bombs have never been exploded in terrorists actions on U.S. soil or any other country for that matter. Therefore, anyone who thinks they have found a bomb is worse than those supposed terrorists. 4. The less you actually know about laws, law enforcement, bombs, bomb tactics, terrorists, and suicide bombers, the more vocal you should be to complain and condemn those that do know. Failure to follow this rule means you're a pooh-pooh-head and your karma will be negatively effected accordingly.
What I'm wondering now is if it is more efficient to use high voltage to transmit electricity long/I>
Which is exactly why most people consider A/C to be more efficient for power distribution. After reading through the many threads here, its obvious many people here are ONLY looking at wire efficiencies (A/C vs D/C) and forget the power has to make it all the way into a home. Like it or not, most people don't want high voltage lines going directly into their home. It's a lot more complex than simply comparing A/C vs D/C wire efficiencies. And those complexities are in A/C's favor.
Ideally, we'll keep the A/C infrastructure and place a central D/C converter in every home. Most items in the house can then run directly off of DC and those that require A/C still have it available. Data centers save up to 30% by using this scheme because they remove all of those low efficiency converters from the mix, replacing them with a single, high efficiency unit.
This conversion introduces inefficiencies. Now is it more efficient to transmit high voltage DC then step down the voltage when it reaches the point of use, or convert at the transmission point?
It is much more efficient to transmit in AC, which is why AC won over DC for power distribution. On the other hand, DC is easier to use, especially with modern electronics.
If Congress really wanted to help with power, they would mandate all new homes built in 2009 or 2010 would require a large DC transformer. Then all house power plugs, save for a select few, would be delivered as DC. This would spur the economy to satisfy the AC-less electronics required in a house. The cost of electronics would also fall as we would no longer require an inefficient transformer in almost every device.
I can't even begin to tell you how many A/C -> D/C converters I have in my house. NOCs and data centers have long started or completed their D/C power migration, savings as much as 30% on their power bills. Not to mention, electronics would last a lot longer as the transformer would ensure clean power.
Long story short: use less electricity from conversion at every device, use less electricity to cool the heat generated from inefficient conversion, create less electronics landfill waste because they last longer (clean power), electronics costs are reduced because now transformer/PS, electronics can be made smaller (which reduced distribution and packaging costs), so on and so on. The only down side is the cost of the initial transformer cost; which can likely be recouped in the first year or three.
Good to see Wikipedia hold up under the mad scramble of 10,000 Slashdotters
Shesh...they have real servers and it's only read-only activity. As they are using MySQL, it's likely all cached hits to boot. As long as they have the bandwidth, it's likely a trivial load. It's not like/. has the hitting power it did five or six years ago.
Seriously! Any military technology written in C# should automatically be disqualified. It's not vendor neutral. The language has not been around long enough to be proven reliable (*surprise*). And MS constantly makes changes to it so it is unlikely to ever be proven reliable. This smacks of idiocy.
All I can say is, "GOOD!" They got what they asked for. Dumb asses. Their task is hard enough without having to figure out if their technology base is working against them. With so many language choices available which squarely fall outside of my first paragraph's criticisms, this is just dumb.
I can't tell you how many man months I've spent tracking down crashes and bugs which ultimately wind up being MS' bugs. Multiply that times the number of developers which have used MS tools and the thousands of wasted man years becomes unbearable. Either you're not doing anything worth being done of you're a shinny, new, ignorant developer which has yet to get burned.
Every serious development project I've been on which is centered on MS technology, has been plagued with MS bugs. In my book, any developer which willingly picks MS as their technology base is very low on the totem pool because it proves they simply don't have the experience to be allowed to pick the technology base.
The only tool suite I've seen which is consistently worse than MS' is Wind Rivers'. Now there is a company which needs to be put out of business. Seems you have to pay large sums of money for them to fix their own compiler bugs which they otherwise refuse to do.
And oh...hehehehehehehehe. Just in case you missed it the first time.
They can prove the data there doesn't correspond to known file formats and/or file system formats. They can prove you have encryption. They can prove you have used encryption. They can prove a common use of your encryption software is to obtain plausible deniability. If they have your computer, they can prove you been using your computer to store/hide the information they are looking for.
One way or another, you're sitting in jail if they really want you to be in jail.
The problem here is, the laws are geared to ensure the law wins. If you're using encryption in an attempt to beat the law, you're going to lose. If on the other hand, you're using encryption because you want to prevent data theft, then you're likely going to win. Use of tools like TC has value. Use of TC has value even versus the law, but the data better be more important than your life because one way or the other, if they really want you locked up, you're going to be locked up.
However, the fact that a hidden partition could exist
Proving a hidden partition exists actually very easy. Proving a hidden partition within a hidden partition exists is not so easy, but thanks to the wonderful documentation provided by TC's own web site, proof is no longer required. At this point, only reasonable doubt is required.
Bad example. For you safe example to be applied, the safe would have been located in the home. The person owning the safe sounds like an idiot denying that they own a safe.
"We found a safe in your home, what's the combination?"
"I don't own a safe. I don't know what you're talking about."
"We found crypto tools on your computer. What's the passphrase?"
"I don't own crypto tools. I don't use them. I don't know what you're talking about."
For some reason people always assume that anyone even loosely associated with law enforcement can't reason their way out of a wet paper bag. They are not all idiots. Basic reasoning and common sense does not disappear just because someone can be associated with law enforcement. It just doesn't work this way. In the real world, theories, even half baked ones, are enough to put you in jail.
I highly recommend you discuss this with legal representation.
If a legal authority is asking you for your keys in the first place, your response is more likely to be met with a rubber hose than a reasoned reply. In fact, the only people that response is going to help is the authorities. Since you are smart enough to install crypto software in an effort to cover your tracks and it is well documented how to cover your tracks so as to obtain plausible deniability, you no longer have plausible deniability in the eyes of the law as it is assumed this is the likely path taken.
This means they'll simply detain you until you either comply (providing the second set of keys) or until they feel you can't comply. Simply put, you empowered them. What is even worse is, even if you don't have a hidden volume within a hidden volume, they now have documented proof this is a common tactic to provide plausible deniability. This means they now have grounds on which to hold you even if you don't have the second volume.
Long story short, the fact TrueCrypt documented a means to obtain plausible deniability means they have effectively removed plausible deniability as a defense for every user of TrueCrypt. Don't believe me? Look up cases where people attempt to use plausible deniability with open wifi. If they have any cause to believe the sole purpose your wifi is open is to create plausible deniability, you immediately lose plausible deniability as any possible defense. In other words, TrueCrypt has effectively removed plausible deniability for their entire user base. Somehow "idiots" just doesn't seem to cover it.
This is even worse! That documentation means they no longer have plausible deniability as the documentation of plausible deniability removes plausible deniability - at least of True Crypt users. This means a case can easily be made to detain people until they yield their second set of pass phrases; regardless if they actually exist or not. Not good. The people documenting this are legal idiots.
Proving that it is encrypted and not cryptographically strong randomness is hard.
The part which people always seem to forget is that the tools which do the encryption/decryption leaves easy to identify signatures; be it file names or binary content. The encrypted contents still have to be accessed by something on the computer. This is trivial to detect and identify.
So know they can confirm encryption software has been installed. Now they have a partition which has lots of random data on it and can even verify it is likely not provided by the manufacturer. They now have a case to get the legal means to force you do disclose the encryption keys.
Judge, we obtained this computer under a warrent. The party has been confirmed to download kiddy porn by matching his IP address. We have confirmed encryption software is in use. We have identified a partition on the computer which is believed to be encrypted. Please compel our suspect to release his encryption keys.
but because the laws will be gutted so badly that there'll be no safety precautions taken because of the expense involved.
That's why they are federally regulated. That's why part of their funding comes from US coffers.
Owners and builders of nuclear plants are already heavily, legally insulated. There is no reason to cut corners. If you can justify the cost of better equipment, and who can't, the feds basically pay for it.
Charging and discharging a lithium-ion battery loses virtually no power.
Hmmm. I don't think I buy into that statement. Many battery manufacturers and retailers are starting to provide battery efficiency information in order to justify the higher costs of higher efficiency battery packs. The high end battery packs seem to be 85% - 94% efficient. While good, that still seems to be a far cry from "discharging...loses virtually no power".
I typically buy packs in the high 80s because the price starts ramping up rapidly once you get much beyond that. Perhaps higher efficiencies are available but are cost prohibitive? Or is the "no loss" batteries only available under lab conditions?
Thanks for the follow up. It never clicked "weapons-grade" material would be one possible post-processing product but it is obvious after you mention it.
and cleanup (Yucca mountain) is more expensive than building
This can be drastically reduced for new nuke plants as, like select few newer nuke plants in Europe, they can recycle their nuclear waste on site, allowing them to drastically reduce both the quantity and the frequency at which it is pushed to places like Yucca.
Last I heard, on site recycling has proved to be cost effective, safe, and environmentally friendly because of the reduced waste being pushed off site.
As far as I know, almost zero recycling outside of the universities in the US and zero is done on site.
And let's not forget there is a lot to win here. The right grades from the right school make the difference between a five digit and a six digit starting salary. Since they took money, seems like serious punishments should be considered. This obviously was not just a curious, dumb, teenager.
Having said that, 20 years is by far too much for something like this. Some murders don't do this. People often forget just how harsh prisons are. Even a year in prison, plus a criminal record as a lifetime punishment, really is a significant penalty to pay. A criminal conviction can easily place an upper limit on their yearly legal income. Let's not forgot that simply being convicted, for a white collar criminal, means punishment for the rest of their life, by means of where they can likely be hired.
and even then you could only purchase enough to take one a day for ten days!
It's far worse than that. If there was ever a law which proves how fucking stupid our government representatives are, it's this law. It seems they can't understand the most basic of math. You can purchase roughly 20 pills to cover 30-days. Most people who are on this type of medication REQUIRE at least one pill per day. I'm fairly sure most any grade schooler can figure out that people are shorted 10 pills per month. But our government is so fucking stupid that can't figure that out.
And yet it gets worse! If you have children, you now have to split those 20-pills between all the people in your house.
Let's take a typical family. Two adults and two children. Two adults can get 40 pills per month, maximum! If you have four people that need to take those pills, him, now each person only gets 10 pills per month. Hmmm....30 days...ten pills....our government is totally fucking dumb and that can't even do the most fundamental of subtraction.
And all the above ignores the fact that some doctors actually want some people to take TWO pills per day if an infection is starting. Now that means the one person is able to fight back their infection to only have it come back a vengeance five days later, for the following 25 days and likely wind up going to the doctor for a prescription, which could have all been avoided if it were not for the fucking morons making these laws.
In other words, this law is requiring people stop buying over the counter medication and forcing people in droves back to their doctors for medication which requires little to no participation from a doctor. Several doctors I've spoken to about this problem are most annoyed because they are often unable to treat patients because they are booked treating patients which should never have be in their offices in the first place. And all this ignores the financial burden it's forcing onto to people who have little to no insurance coverage for prescriptions.
Literally, our government is making people sick and making them pay more money and wasted time (which for many means loss of money) for the privilege of paying more money for both a doctor visit and prescriptions.
If it has a weapon you can bet the link is encrypted with attempts at redundant receivers. Even if some hacker got really, really, lucky with first hand knowledge from insider help, it's very unlikely more than one or two could ever be "hacked". Heck, even their own operators can't hijack another vehicle which hasn't been previously configured on their console. And "patching the system" with new code....pffff... And by hacked, I mean remotely operated. And even this depiction is so far out there, it's insanely laughable.
Some backpack carried, hand launched, remotely piloted, tactical (not strategic like Predator or Global Hawk) spy planes do not use encryption and can be jammed, or perhaps even hijacked, but worse case you might bruise someone with it, or attempt to scout an area until its battery runs out.
My brother found his system was spiking, making some game play impossible. Turns out it was Beagle periodically running, wasting disk and CPU. He uninstalled the POS and everything was great afterwards.
Hmmm my car seems to be missing the altimiter and compass and "flying mode" options...
Hehe. I guess that part didn't come out very well. The point being, just like in a car, you follow your lane. For planes, the lane is imaginary but enforced by regulation and/or ATC. By procedure, pilots stay in their lanes. Depending on the type of flying, regulations even specify the width of the lane.
Because the pilot cared to talk about it, that was clearly a close call.
The fact the pilot knew to discuss it with passengers before it happened meant it was not a close call. Likely, the pilot was being pro-active to avoid ignorance among his passengers, exactly like what you're spewing now.
Planes fly by each other all the time. People fail to realize there are both horizontal and vertical rules of separation. People fail to realize pilots are not forced to blindly fly a course. In fact, pilots are required by regulation to "see and avoid." I have seen a near miss; with collision avoided only by my radio call. I have also seen lots of normal traffic which from overhead appears to intercept in space yet was safely separated by 1000 - 2000 feet. It's common and not dangerous. On the other hand, I have almost been hit by a reckless pilot before; requiring significant maneuvering. ATC was kind enough to alert me before I had even spotted the traffic. Yet despite being too close for comfort, it did not meet the FAA's definition of a "near miss".
Planes, like cars, have specific altitudes they must fly based on their compass heading and nature of their flight. ATC can override this, but they will only do so when they can aid with traffic separation. In other words, just because you see two cars pass by each other, each in their own lane, in no way, shape, or form, means they almost collided. Planes, like cars, pass each other on a daily basis, only with an extra dimension added.
Cable TV is cheaper than it would be if there were no ads at all.
That's actually not true. Most people don't remember then but when cable first came out to the masses, 90% of the selling point is that you would ONLY get commercials on network broadcast channels. Once they had their foot in the door in most markets, commercials changed over night. Since then, it has been the same old story; lie, lie, lie, raise prices again, just like everyone other monopoly/utility. I seem to recall cable being commercial free for only a year or two, after that they placed commercials like crazy and their prices doubled over the next eight years. This was in the Houston market. Keep in mind, they were profitable when before they had commercials and while they were still rolling out cable in large areas. Think about that for second.
These days people pay inflated prices for channels because we are floating 100-channels no one watches or wants because they are force bundled. In other words, they could drop commercials and stop bundling and prices could stay the same. Some estimates I've read suggest cable company prices could be cut in half and they would still be wildly profitable. Remember, sat TV is only profitable because cable profits are so insanely, unreasonable high. Think about it for a second, you really think the cost of using cable laid over the last 30 years is anything near the cost of launching and maintaining sats in orbit while maintaining a market the fraction the size cable? To boot, sat is often cheaper than cable in many markets while their per install overhead is much, much higher than cable. If that doesn't tell you how insanely over priced cable is, you'll never gasp it.
The version, as you tell it, is what the cable companies preach and it has been fairly well debunked.
Yes, it does. But then again, most people don't need to mount their reiserfs, xfs, ext2*, ext3, so on and so on from Windows. With the exception of ext2, it's not likely to happen anyways. So I fail to see the problem. It's not like the entire device, as would be the case with RAID hardware, is tied to a specific RAID implementation. Besides, using RAID hardware means you're tied to a specific hardware vendor.
Can I mount a software RAID set made in Linux in Windows? Or vice versa?
Not really sure why you mention this because it is not something which is normally done. If this is an issue for you, then I would guess you fall into a less than one percent of one percent of Linux users. It's simply not a factor in the real world unless you have very obscure requirements. Frankly, I'm drawing a blank.
Slashdot Mirror
Every time you and your fraidy-cat buddies jumps
4. The less you actually know about laws, law enforcement, bombs, bomb tactics, terrorists, and suicide bombers, the more vocal you should be to complain and condemn those that do know. Failure to follow this rule means you're a pooh-pooh-head and your karma will be negatively effected accordingly.
I see you are a subscriber to option #4.
Believe it or not, law enforcement reacted to bomb threats all the time, before 9/11. The only difference between then and now is people like you that have no idea what you're talking about and now want to punish law enforcement for properly and professionally doing their job. And oh ya, the threat is actually higher.
In other words, your denial and refusal to admit bad things happen in the world, long before 9/11 was captured on film, means you are unfit to comment let alone do so publicly. Worse, YOU are the one giving in to the terrorists, afraid people doing their job means you might have to face the world.
Guess what, the world is a scary place and has been long before 9/11.
Boo! It's time to wake up. And you probably wonder why GW spits on the constitution to do his job? Because people like you ensure he can't get the job done any other way. Do I support him? No. Can I explain it? Yes. The answer is simple; people like you.
According to most slashdotters, unless it were to actually explode then your concerns are completely invalid and unwarranted. Furthermore, any official which takes actions to address a legitimate concern should be fired.
When posting on slashdot you need to remember the following rules:
1. If it didn't explode, it's not a bomb - including explosives which didn't explode.
2. Caring for public safety is not your job. Your job is to complain about those that keep you safe.
3. Terrorists don't exists. Bombs have never been exploded in terrorists actions on U.S. soil or any other country for that matter. Therefore, anyone who thinks they have found a bomb is worse than those supposed terrorists.
4. The less you actually know about laws, law enforcement, bombs, bomb tactics, terrorists, and suicide bombers, the more vocal you should be to complain and condemn those that do know. Failure to follow this rule means you're a pooh-pooh-head and your karma will be negatively effected accordingly.
Let the karma bombings begin...
What I'm wondering now is if it is more efficient to use high voltage to transmit electricity long/I>
Which is exactly why most people consider A/C to be more efficient for power distribution. After reading through the many threads here, its obvious many people here are ONLY looking at wire efficiencies (A/C vs D/C) and forget the power has to make it all the way into a home. Like it or not, most people don't want high voltage lines going directly into their home. It's a lot more complex than simply comparing A/C vs D/C wire efficiencies. And those complexities are in A/C's favor.
Ideally, we'll keep the A/C infrastructure and place a central D/C converter in every home. Most items in the house can then run directly off of DC and those that require A/C still have it available. Data centers save up to 30% by using this scheme because they remove all of those low efficiency converters from the mix, replacing them with a single, high efficiency unit.
This conversion introduces inefficiencies. Now is it more efficient to transmit high voltage DC then step down the voltage when it reaches the point of use, or convert at the transmission point?
It is much more efficient to transmit in AC, which is why AC won over DC for power distribution. On the other hand, DC is easier to use, especially with modern electronics.
If Congress really wanted to help with power, they would mandate all new homes built in 2009 or 2010 would require a large DC transformer. Then all house power plugs, save for a select few, would be delivered as DC. This would spur the economy to satisfy the AC-less electronics required in a house. The cost of electronics would also fall as we would no longer require an inefficient transformer in almost every device.
I can't even begin to tell you how many A/C -> D/C converters I have in my house. NOCs and data centers have long started or completed their D/C power migration, savings as much as 30% on their power bills. Not to mention, electronics would last a lot longer as the transformer would ensure clean power.
Long story short: use less electricity from conversion at every device, use less electricity to cool the heat generated from inefficient conversion, create less electronics landfill waste because they last longer (clean power), electronics costs are reduced because now transformer/PS, electronics can be made smaller (which reduced distribution and packaging costs), so on and so on. The only down side is the cost of the initial transformer cost; which can likely be recouped in the first year or three.
Good to see Wikipedia hold up under the mad scramble of 10,000 Slashdotters
/. has the hitting power it did five or six years ago.
Shesh...they have real servers and it's only read-only activity. As they are using MySQL, it's likely all cached hits to boot. As long as they have the bandwidth, it's likely a trivial load. It's not like
It was written in Microsoft's C#
Hehehehehehhehehe. Bwahahahahahhaa!
Seriously! Any military technology written in C# should automatically be disqualified. It's not vendor neutral. The language has not been around long enough to be proven reliable (*surprise*). And MS constantly makes changes to it so it is unlikely to ever be proven reliable. This smacks of idiocy.
All I can say is, "GOOD!" They got what they asked for. Dumb asses. Their task is hard enough without having to figure out if their technology base is working against them. With so many language choices available which squarely fall outside of my first paragraph's criticisms, this is just dumb.
I can't tell you how many man months I've spent tracking down crashes and bugs which ultimately wind up being MS' bugs. Multiply that times the number of developers which have used MS tools and the thousands of wasted man years becomes unbearable. Either you're not doing anything worth being done of you're a shinny, new, ignorant developer which has yet to get burned.
Every serious development project I've been on which is centered on MS technology, has been plagued with MS bugs. In my book, any developer which willingly picks MS as their technology base is very low on the totem pool because it proves they simply don't have the experience to be allowed to pick the technology base.
The only tool suite I've seen which is consistently worse than MS' is Wind Rivers'. Now there is a company which needs to be put out of business. Seems you have to pay large sums of money for them to fix their own compiler bugs which they otherwise refuse to do.
And oh...hehehehehehehehe. Just in case you missed it the first time.
This is built on many bad assumptions.
They can prove the data there doesn't correspond to known file formats and/or file system formats. They can prove you have encryption. They can prove you have used encryption. They can prove a common use of your encryption software is to obtain plausible deniability. If they have your computer, they can prove you been using your computer to store/hide the information they are looking for.
One way or another, you're sitting in jail if they really want you to be in jail.
The problem here is, the laws are geared to ensure the law wins. If you're using encryption in an attempt to beat the law, you're going to lose. If on the other hand, you're using encryption because you want to prevent data theft, then you're likely going to win. Use of tools like TC has value. Use of TC has value even versus the law, but the data better be more important than your life because one way or the other, if they really want you locked up, you're going to be locked up.
However, the fact that a hidden partition could exist
Proving a hidden partition exists actually very easy. Proving a hidden partition within a hidden partition exists is not so easy, but thanks to the wonderful documentation provided by TC's own web site, proof is no longer required. At this point, only reasonable doubt is required.
Bad example. For you safe example to be applied, the safe would have been located in the home. The person owning the safe sounds like an idiot denying that they own a safe.
"We found a safe in your home, what's the combination?"
"I don't own a safe. I don't know what you're talking about."
"We found crypto tools on your computer. What's the passphrase?"
"I don't own crypto tools. I don't use them. I don't know what you're talking about."
For some reason people always assume that anyone even loosely associated with law enforcement can't reason their way out of a wet paper bag. They are not all idiots. Basic reasoning and common sense does not disappear just because someone can be associated with law enforcement. It just doesn't work this way. In the real world, theories, even half baked ones, are enough to put you in jail.
I highly recommend you discuss this with legal representation.
If a legal authority is asking you for your keys in the first place, your response is more likely to be met with a rubber hose than a reasoned reply. In fact, the only people that response is going to help is the authorities. Since you are smart enough to install crypto software in an effort to cover your tracks and it is well documented how to cover your tracks so as to obtain plausible deniability, you no longer have plausible deniability in the eyes of the law as it is assumed this is the likely path taken.
This means they'll simply detain you until you either comply (providing the second set of keys) or until they feel you can't comply. Simply put, you empowered them. What is even worse is, even if you don't have a hidden volume within a hidden volume, they now have documented proof this is a common tactic to provide plausible deniability. This means they now have grounds on which to hold you even if you don't have the second volume.
Long story short, the fact TrueCrypt documented a means to obtain plausible deniability means they have effectively removed plausible deniability as a defense for every user of TrueCrypt. Don't believe me? Look up cases where people attempt to use plausible deniability with open wifi. If they have any cause to believe the sole purpose your wifi is open is to create plausible deniability, you immediately lose plausible deniability as any possible defense. In other words, TrueCrypt has effectively removed plausible deniability for their entire user base. Somehow "idiots" just doesn't seem to cover it.
This is even worse! That documentation means they no longer have plausible deniability as the documentation of plausible deniability removes plausible deniability - at least of True Crypt users. This means a case can easily be made to detain people until they yield their second set of pass phrases; regardless if they actually exist or not. Not good. The people documenting this are legal idiots.
Proving that it is encrypted and not cryptographically strong randomness is hard.
The part which people always seem to forget is that the tools which do the encryption/decryption leaves easy to identify signatures; be it file names or binary content. The encrypted contents still have to be accessed by something on the computer. This is trivial to detect and identify.
So know they can confirm encryption software has been installed. Now they have a partition which has lots of random data on it and can even verify it is likely not provided by the manufacturer. They now have a case to get the legal means to force you do disclose the encryption keys.
Judge, we obtained this computer under a warrent. The party has been confirmed to download kiddy porn by matching his IP address. We have confirmed encryption software is in use. We have identified a partition on the computer which is believed to be encrypted. Please compel our suspect to release his encryption keys.
Done.
but because the laws will be gutted so badly that there'll be no safety precautions taken because of the expense involved.
That's why they are federally regulated. That's why part of their funding comes from US coffers.
Owners and builders of nuclear plants are already heavily, legally insulated. There is no reason to cut corners. If you can justify the cost of better equipment, and who can't, the feds basically pay for it.
Charging and discharging a lithium-ion battery loses virtually no power.
Hmmm. I don't think I buy into that statement. Many battery manufacturers and retailers are starting to provide battery efficiency information in order to justify the higher costs of higher efficiency battery packs. The high end battery packs seem to be 85% - 94% efficient. While good, that still seems to be a far cry from "discharging...loses virtually no power".
I typically buy packs in the high 80s because the price starts ramping up rapidly once you get much beyond that. Perhaps higher efficiencies are available but are cost prohibitive? Or is the "no loss" batteries only available under lab conditions?
Thanks for the follow up. It never clicked "weapons-grade" material would be one possible post-processing product but it is obvious after you mention it.
+1 Insightful
+1 Informative
and cleanup (Yucca mountain) is more expensive than building
This can be drastically reduced for new nuke plants as, like select few newer nuke plants in Europe, they can recycle their nuclear waste on site, allowing them to drastically reduce both the quantity and the frequency at which it is pushed to places like Yucca.
Last I heard, on site recycling has proved to be cost effective, safe, and environmentally friendly because of the reduced waste being pushed off site.
As far as I know, almost zero recycling outside of the universities in the US and zero is done on site.
And let's not forget there is a lot to win here. The right grades from the right school make the difference between a five digit and a six digit starting salary. Since they took money, seems like serious punishments should be considered. This obviously was not just a curious, dumb, teenager.
Having said that, 20 years is by far too much for something like this. Some murders don't do this. People often forget just how harsh prisons are. Even a year in prison, plus a criminal record as a lifetime punishment, really is a significant penalty to pay. A criminal conviction can easily place an upper limit on their yearly legal income. Let's not forgot that simply being convicted, for a white collar criminal, means punishment for the rest of their life, by means of where they can likely be hired.
and even then you could only purchase enough to take one a day for ten days!
It's far worse than that. If there was ever a law which proves how fucking stupid our government representatives are, it's this law. It seems they can't understand the most basic of math. You can purchase roughly 20 pills to cover 30-days. Most people who are on this type of medication REQUIRE at least one pill per day. I'm fairly sure most any grade schooler can figure out that people are shorted 10 pills per month. But our government is so fucking stupid that can't figure that out.
And yet it gets worse! If you have children, you now have to split those 20-pills between all the people in your house.
Let's take a typical family. Two adults and two children. Two adults can get 40 pills per month, maximum! If you have four people that need to take those pills, him, now each person only gets 10 pills per month. Hmmm....30 days...ten pills....our government is totally fucking dumb and that can't even do the most fundamental of subtraction.
And all the above ignores the fact that some doctors actually want some people to take TWO pills per day if an infection is starting. Now that means the one person is able to fight back their infection to only have it come back a vengeance five days later, for the following 25 days and likely wind up going to the doctor for a prescription, which could have all been avoided if it were not for the fucking morons making these laws.
In other words, this law is requiring people stop buying over the counter medication and forcing people in droves back to their doctors for medication which requires little to no participation from a doctor. Several doctors I've spoken to about this problem are most annoyed because they are often unable to treat patients because they are booked treating patients which should never have be in their offices in the first place. And all this ignores the financial burden it's forcing onto to people who have little to no insurance coverage for prescriptions.
Literally, our government is making people sick and making them pay more money and wasted time (which for many means loss of money) for the privilege of paying more money for both a doctor visit and prescriptions.
If it has a weapon you can bet the link is encrypted with attempts at redundant receivers. Even if some hacker got really, really, lucky with first hand knowledge from insider help, it's very unlikely more than one or two could ever be "hacked". Heck, even their own operators can't hijack another vehicle which hasn't been previously configured on their console. And "patching the system" with new code....pffff... And by hacked, I mean remotely operated. And even this depiction is so far out there, it's insanely laughable.
Some backpack carried, hand launched, remotely piloted, tactical (not strategic like Predator or Global Hawk) spy planes do not use encryption and can be jammed, or perhaps even hijacked, but worse case you might bruise someone with it, or attempt to scout an area until its battery runs out.
I think you've been watching too much Star Trek.
My brother found his system was spiking, making some game play impossible. Turns out it was Beagle periodically running, wasting disk and CPU. He uninstalled the POS and everything was great afterwards.
I agree, I see no point in apps like Beagle.
Hmmm my car seems to be missing the altimiter and compass and "flying mode" options...
Hehe. I guess that part didn't come out very well. The point being, just like in a car, you follow your lane. For planes, the lane is imaginary but enforced by regulation and/or ATC. By procedure, pilots stay in their lanes. Depending on the type of flying, regulations even specify the width of the lane.
Because the pilot cared to talk about it, that was clearly a close call.
The fact the pilot knew to discuss it with passengers before it happened meant it was not a close call. Likely, the pilot was being pro-active to avoid ignorance among his passengers, exactly like what you're spewing now.
Planes fly by each other all the time. People fail to realize there are both horizontal and vertical rules of separation. People fail to realize pilots are not forced to blindly fly a course. In fact, pilots are required by regulation to "see and avoid." I have seen a near miss; with collision avoided only by my radio call. I have also seen lots of normal traffic which from overhead appears to intercept in space yet was safely separated by 1000 - 2000 feet. It's common and not dangerous. On the other hand, I have almost been hit by a reckless pilot before; requiring significant maneuvering. ATC was kind enough to alert me before I had even spotted the traffic. Yet despite being too close for comfort, it did not meet the FAA's definition of a "near miss".
Planes, like cars, have specific altitudes they must fly based on their compass heading and nature of their flight. ATC can override this, but they will only do so when they can aid with traffic separation. In other words, just because you see two cars pass by each other, each in their own lane, in no way, shape, or form, means they almost collided. Planes, like cars, pass each other on a daily basis, only with an extra dimension added.
Cable TV is cheaper than it would be if there were no ads at all.
That's actually not true. Most people don't remember then but when cable first came out to the masses, 90% of the selling point is that you would ONLY get commercials on network broadcast channels. Once they had their foot in the door in most markets, commercials changed over night. Since then, it has been the same old story; lie, lie, lie, raise prices again, just like everyone other monopoly/utility. I seem to recall cable being commercial free for only a year or two, after that they placed commercials like crazy and their prices doubled over the next eight years. This was in the Houston market. Keep in mind, they were profitable when before they had commercials and while they were still rolling out cable in large areas. Think about that for second.
These days people pay inflated prices for channels because we are floating 100-channels no one watches or wants because they are force bundled. In other words, they could drop commercials and stop bundling and prices could stay the same. Some estimates I've read suggest cable company prices could be cut in half and they would still be wildly profitable. Remember, sat TV is only profitable because cable profits are so insanely, unreasonable high. Think about it for a second, you really think the cost of using cable laid over the last 30 years is anything near the cost of launching and maintaining sats in orbit while maintaining a market the fraction the size cable? To boot, sat is often cheaper than cable in many markets while their per install overhead is much, much higher than cable. If that doesn't tell you how insanely over priced cable is, you'll never gasp it.
The version, as you tell it, is what the cable companies preach and it has been fairly well debunked.
No, but AFAIK it does tie you to a specific OS.
Yes, it does. But then again, most people don't need to mount their reiserfs, xfs, ext2*, ext3, so on and so on from Windows. With the exception of ext2, it's not likely to happen anyways. So I fail to see the problem. It's not like the entire device, as would be the case with RAID hardware, is tied to a specific RAID implementation. Besides, using RAID hardware means you're tied to a specific hardware vendor.
Can I mount a software RAID set made in Linux in Windows? Or vice versa?
Not really sure why you mention this because it is not something which is normally done. If this is an issue for you, then I would guess you fall into a less than one percent of one percent of Linux users. It's simply not a factor in the real world unless you have very obscure requirements. Frankly, I'm drawing a blank.