The Heisenberg principle is much bigger than just that. Position & Momentum are just the most famous pair, but there are other pairs of measurements that cannot be precisely measured at the same time. If I hadn't gotten senioritus, I might be able to tell you which pair might be applicable (I'll try to look it up if someone doesn't beat me to it).
It was fairly mindless (most of the time you could just stand off to the side). I lost a bit of my health running through rooms too quickly (and into goons). I think I injured my clicking finger trying to get through the hundreds of slides as quick as I could.;)
Wow. That was one of the stupidest "games" I've ever played. It's mostly just a bunch of pointless running from place to place to see slides of extreme anti-Bush propaganda. Don't get me wrong, I'm voting against Bush in November, but this "game" is utter crap.
BTW, I did win, but I was down to my last life (Jesus) with only 1 heart left. Phew!
It's called dating. You log on to this MMORPG called life and do things like chatting while competing with/against each other through myriads of mini-games. It even includes in-game cut-scenes that advance the plot.
Eventually, if your team works really well together, you might be able to expand your team by recruiting some newbies. Oh, but don't let your boss catch you playing at work. And make sure that you share your power-ups with your teammates or they might look for another team.
So if Kerry were to win, what kind of powers/responsibilities would his transition team have? If we was actually able to call some of the shots, maybe there would be joint culpability?
Hmmm. I must admit that this was before my time. It appears that Carter's loss of the precedency contributed to the release as much or more than Reagan's win. Were the terms that we agreed to signed off by Pres. Carter or Pres. Reagan?
While agree that some people will be arguing one or the other (if they have a chance), that doesn't make it reasonable. First we would be presuming to know the meaning behind terrorists' actions, and secondly we would be blaming the Republican spin machine on Kerry! If such a perception were to cause the election to go badly, wouldn't the RNC have quite a lot of blame to share? This is turning into such a negative campaign on both sides that it is hard to see how either will be respected afterwards.
I think that Iraq will be more concerned with rebuilding their country and creating conventional forces to prevent a possible ongoing insurgency, coups, or even civil war. WMDs do not figure into this in any short-term window.
Of course, I am assuming that democracy will take root in Iraq. If Iraq falls into a dictatorship again, then power can be quickly consolidated, unreset quelled, the problems of the people ignored. Then Iraq could pursue WMDs, but so could a lot of other countries that want them.
I think many people are missing the point of your last sentence. If we hope to salvage any semblence of a positive relationship in the Middle East, we need to start by letting the Iraqi people start governing themselves. Granted that is the first step down a long, dusty road.
Seeing as how the presidential inauguration is on January 20, 2005, if John Kerry were to be elected President, how could he possibly be held accountable for actions taken by Bush as he finished his term? Even if the elections were held on January 31, would you [reasonably*] blame Kerry for his first 2 weeks when everything would have already been set in motion with an enormous political inertia?
*I understand that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have proven themselves to be unreasonable about the current political situation in the US.
Bell Telephone Laboratories or Bell Labs was originally the research and development arm of the United States Bell System, and was the premier corporate facility of its type, developing a range of revolutionary technologies from telephone switches to specialized coverings for telephone cables, to the transistor.
Bell Labs was 50 percent owned by Western Electric, and 50 percent owned by AT&T.
You are probably not being ignored because you are small (after all the EC favors small states*), but because your state probably leans hard in favor of either Republican or Democrat and they take you for granted.
* Although I have seen an argument that states should get EC votes based on sqrt(Pop), the fact is that the # of EC votes is the sum of its Reps. and Sens. Since the #Reps. are based on Pop, you essentially have #EC = f(Pop) + 2. So small states have more EC votes per person than large states. I am not arguing against the [debatable] need for this, but merely pointing it out.
So who wins if we all write in John Smith? Wouldn't that be a big fight! Then we'd have to have a John Smith run-off. Of course, you wouldn't want to show placement bias, so you couldn't use alphabetical order.;)
Actually he's not off for good. As the article you linked to says, they have simply postoned the mailing of ballots until this has been resolved in the Florida Supreme Court. They will decide whether he is on or off.
Wow I was completely off! Not even close to a bell-curve. Depending on how you model it, it can be described as an L-curve, where all the wealth is at the high end!
From the Census Bureau for 2001:
Share of Aggregate Income
Highest Fifth 50.1%
Fourth Fifth 23.0%
Middle Fifth 14.6%
Second Fifth 8.7%
Lowest Fifth 3.5%
with the top 5% of the population making 22.4% share of the nation's aggregate income!
I'm not really sure what the best way to visualize this data is. Pie chart is okay. Another way would be to plot the percentiles across the x-axis (too bad we don't have all 100) and their aggregate share in the y-axis. Another would be to plot income ranges across the bottom (say in $10,000 bins) and then give the number of percentiles whose average fall in that range (of course this doesn't really work with only 5 numbers). Anyone have better data? Please?
No, bell curve is definitely not right. I don't know all of the different models, but I'm sure that there is a shape that looks more like the distribution for black-body radiation. Having never seen the data, I would imagine there might be a couple different peaks. I was making a complete guess, hopefully somewhat educated.
If someone know where I can find a nice little graph of income distributions that would be awesome. Especially if there were many, like USA & states or USA & other countries, etc.
You are an uber-quibbler, I'll give you that. Does your whole argument with me boil down to keeping the original plaintext secret? If I wipe the hard drive and then burn it and throw the RAM in acid, would that satisfy? Then what would the security issue be?
Please tell me that your sig wasn't directed at me. It sounds to me like we both know what we're talking about, we just got into a stupid "argument." BTW, thanks for pointing out the OTP with unlimited encrypted bit streams that could all just be xor-ed together. (If I ever need to send a super-top-secret message, I guess I will just have to encrypt the message with AES, OTP with 50 hashes, encrypt those as well with IDEA, and send them along different channels.
I took a short quote from an appropriate movie and encrypted it with my random hash. How are you possibly going to figure it out unless you obtain the key as well? Remember, I only use the key once, so you can't use your own plaintext to generate your own ciphertext. (If you could then the key is obvious anyway since we are only xor-ing.)
All you know about the original text is that it is 17 bytes (and what I told you). As far as you can determine, it can be any 17-byte message imaginable.
Please see the other response. I don't think that any attack, other than brute force (which would find MANY possible solutions) is possible. Correct me if I'm wrong. I guess that we're really talking about different methods of encryption and what you said is probably correct in response to what you think I meant.
If the hash is the exact length of the message, then there is no rearranging. There is no mathematical relationship to any parts of the message with each other. Since each bit is independently encrypted, you have to have the hash to know what the original message is. Effectively you are splitting the information in two halves that are useless without each other. Keep in mind that the hash is used exactly once and must be transmitted seperately (1 over mail, the other over email?) to reduce the chance of interception.
You must have been confused into thinking I was discussing some form of useful encryption. This type is not very practical unless you have 2 seperate modes of fairly secure transmission.
I would agree that if noone could determine the plaintext it would be a secret. This is more secure than an unencrypted message because 2 useless halves would be transmitted seperately. In order to discover a single bit with certainty, you would have to have both. How is my understanding of security in this less than complete?
Of course you won't have to pay cell minutes for this modem. Two of these modems could talk for free (just like wireless modems). Of course, if you wanted to get on the internet you would still have to pay your provider the standard fee.
It is unbreakable if, as one poster pointed out, the hash is the same length as the data, is completely random, and is used exactly once. Without a copy of the hash there is absolutely no way to determine the plaintext.
That said, this is extremely rarely a viable solution. Maybe for a spy or something. Send the message along one route and the hash along another. Without both, they are useless.
Slashdot Mirror
The Heisenberg principle is much bigger than just that. Position & Momentum are just the most famous pair, but there are other pairs of measurements that cannot be precisely measured at the same time. If I hadn't gotten senioritus, I might be able to tell you which pair might be applicable (I'll try to look it up if someone doesn't beat me to it).
42? I think that fits! You have come up with The Question!
It was fairly mindless (most of the time you could just stand off to the side). I lost a bit of my health running through rooms too quickly (and into goons). I think I injured my clicking finger trying to get through the hundreds of slides as quick as I could. ;)
Wow. That was one of the stupidest "games" I've ever played. It's mostly just a bunch of pointless running from place to place to see slides of extreme anti-Bush propaganda. Don't get me wrong, I'm voting against Bush in November, but this "game" is utter crap.
BTW, I did win, but I was down to my last life (Jesus) with only 1 heart left. Phew!
It's called dating. You log on to this MMORPG called life and do things like chatting while competing with/against each other through myriads of mini-games. It even includes in-game cut-scenes that advance the plot.
Eventually, if your team works really well together, you might be able to expand your team by recruiting some newbies. Oh, but don't let your boss catch you playing at work. And make sure that you share your power-ups with your teammates or they might look for another team.
So if Kerry were to win, what kind of powers/responsibilities would his transition team have? If we was actually able to call some of the shots, maybe there would be joint culpability?
Hmmm. I must admit that this was before my time. It appears that Carter's loss of the precedency contributed to the release as much or more than Reagan's win. Were the terms that we agreed to signed off by Pres. Carter or Pres. Reagan?
While agree that some people will be arguing one or the other (if they have a chance), that doesn't make it reasonable. First we would be presuming to know the meaning behind terrorists' actions, and secondly we would be blaming the Republican spin machine on Kerry! If such a perception were to cause the election to go badly, wouldn't the RNC have quite a lot of blame to share? This is turning into such a negative campaign on both sides that it is hard to see how either will be respected afterwards.
Microsoft is not in the English language either... unless you are using Word's spellchecker.
I think that Iraq will be more concerned with rebuilding their country and creating conventional forces to prevent a possible ongoing insurgency, coups, or even civil war. WMDs do not figure into this in any short-term window.
Of course, I am assuming that democracy will take root in Iraq. If Iraq falls into a dictatorship again, then power can be quickly consolidated, unreset quelled, the problems of the people ignored. Then Iraq could pursue WMDs, but so could a lot of other countries that want them.
I think many people are missing the point of your last sentence. If we hope to salvage any semblence of a positive relationship in the Middle East, we need to start by letting the Iraqi people start governing themselves. Granted that is the first step down a long, dusty road.
Seeing as how the presidential inauguration is on January 20, 2005, if John Kerry were to be elected President, how could he possibly be held accountable for actions taken by Bush as he finished his term? Even if the elections were held on January 31, would you [reasonably*] blame Kerry for his first 2 weeks when everything would have already been set in motion with an enormous political inertia?
*I understand that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have proven themselves to be unreasonable about the current political situation in the US.
You are probably not being ignored because you are small (after all the EC favors small states*), but because your state probably leans hard in favor of either Republican or Democrat and they take you for granted.
* Although I have seen an argument that states should get EC votes based on sqrt(Pop), the fact is that the # of EC votes is the sum of its Reps. and Sens. Since the #Reps. are based on Pop, you essentially have #EC = f(Pop) + 2. So small states have more EC votes per person than large states. I am not arguing against the [debatable] need for this, but merely pointing it out.
So who wins if we all write in John Smith? Wouldn't that be a big fight! Then we'd have to have a John Smith run-off. Of course, you wouldn't want to show placement bias, so you couldn't use alphabetical order. ;)
Actually he's not off for good. As the article you linked to says, they have simply postoned the mailing of ballots until this has been resolved in the Florida Supreme Court. They will decide whether he is on or off.
From the Census Bureau for 2001:
- Share of Aggregate Income
- Highest Fifth 50.1%
- Fourth Fifth 23.0%
- Middle Fifth 14.6%
- Second Fifth 8.7%
- Lowest Fifth 3.5%
with the top 5% of the population making 22.4% share of the nation's aggregate income!I'm not really sure what the best way to visualize this data is. Pie chart is okay. Another way would be to plot the percentiles across the x-axis (too bad we don't have all 100) and their aggregate share in the y-axis. Another would be to plot income ranges across the bottom (say in $10,000 bins) and then give the number of percentiles whose average fall in that range (of course this doesn't really work with only 5 numbers). Anyone have better data? Please?
No, bell curve is definitely not right. I don't know all of the different models, but I'm sure that there is a shape that looks more like the distribution for black-body radiation. Having never seen the data, I would imagine there might be a couple different peaks. I was making a complete guess, hopefully somewhat educated.
If someone know where I can find a nice little graph of income distributions that would be awesome. Especially if there were many, like USA & states or USA & other countries, etc.
Please do not regard my previous post as a flame. Rereading it later, I realized that it could be perceived as a mild one. Sorry.
You are an uber-quibbler, I'll give you that. Does your whole argument with me boil down to keeping the original plaintext secret? If I wipe the hard drive and then burn it and throw the RAM in acid, would that satisfy? Then what would the security issue be?
Please tell me that your sig wasn't directed at me. It sounds to me like we both know what we're talking about, we just got into a stupid "argument." BTW, thanks for pointing out the OTP with unlimited encrypted bit streams that could all just be xor-ed together. (If I ever need to send a super-top-secret message, I guess I will just have to encrypt the message with AES, OTP with 50 hashes, encrypt those as well with IDEA, and send them along different channels.
Preemptively, here is an example.
3B4BD310B5C522069DDFE42392AFD8A35B
I took a short quote from an appropriate movie and encrypted it with my random hash. How are you possibly going to figure it out unless you obtain the key as well? Remember, I only use the key once, so you can't use your own plaintext to generate your own ciphertext. (If you could then the key is obvious anyway since we are only xor-ing.)
All you know about the original text is that it is 17 bytes (and what I told you). As far as you can determine, it can be any 17-byte message imaginable.
Please see the other response. I don't think that any attack, other than brute force (which would find MANY possible solutions) is possible. Correct me if I'm wrong. I guess that we're really talking about different methods of encryption and what you said is probably correct in response to what you think I meant.
If the hash is the exact length of the message, then there is no rearranging. There is no mathematical relationship to any parts of the message with each other. Since each bit is independently encrypted, you have to have the hash to know what the original message is. Effectively you are splitting the information in two halves that are useless without each other. Keep in mind that the hash is used exactly once and must be transmitted seperately (1 over mail, the other over email?) to reduce the chance of interception.
You must have been confused into thinking I was discussing some form of useful encryption. This type is not very practical unless you have 2 seperate modes of fairly secure transmission.
I would agree that if noone could determine the plaintext it would be a secret. This is more secure than an unencrypted message because 2 useless halves would be transmitted seperately. In order to discover a single bit with certainty, you would have to have both. How is my understanding of security in this less than complete?
Of course you won't have to pay cell minutes for this modem. Two of these modems could talk for free (just like wireless modems). Of course, if you wanted to get on the internet you would still have to pay your provider the standard fee.
It is unbreakable if, as one poster pointed out, the hash is the same length as the data, is completely random, and is used exactly once. Without a copy of the hash there is absolutely no way to determine the plaintext.
That said, this is extremely rarely a viable solution. Maybe for a spy or something. Send the message along one route and the hash along another. Without both, they are useless.
Man, I wish I could mod the moderator. Marking a complaint about a redundant post as redundant?
+1 Funny!!!