No, unfortunately this is incorrect. bzip2 probably will ignore data after the end of the stream, plus it has future usage blocks that are likely ignored. OOo also has areas that are ignored by the editor. (I'm generalizing, I didn't check either program, but many - can I say most? - programs have such areas.)
Using those areas you can add whatever padding data you need to "fix" the hash after adding your fake data.
Recording the file length makes it harder, true. But if you are the one generating the hash you can pre-padd the data to give you a space later for this manipulation.
SH1 and MD5 are both basically the same algorithm, with some changes, so it's quite possible to find something that matches both.
And: how do you think a MD5 hash works? It takes two unrelated hashes, and combines them, since after all, how likely is it that a change will properly affect both hashes? Well you know the answer to that since MD5 has been semi-broken.
So far no one has come up with an unbreakable hash, it apparently is very hard to do. All the exiting hashes (from MD1 and up, and including SHA*) are all based on the same idea, each new version adding some new twist to make it work better, but the basic premise for all of them is based on the work of one guy.
Interesting post, but you made a fundamental error: the ability to "own" intellectual property is a function of the law, not a basic moral premise (eg: the concept didn't even exist until modern times, while even animals understand stealing physical items).
As such, that "right" is limited only to what the law allows it and no more.
And while I'm not going to argue if fair use allows or doesn't allow cracking a DVD, I will say that for people to argue the law is wrong does not make them "dumb-stupid"!
It merely means they don't agree with the law, and are engaging in civil disobedience.
You are taking the existence of intellectual property as a given without even realizing you are doing so (if you even realized it's possible for it not to exist you would not a written what you did). So perhaps you should label yourself as a "dumb-stupid".
Remember: just because someone said "I reserve the right to blah blah blah" doesn't mean they actually have that right! Either I have to _give_ them that right, or the law does.
Just as an example: I often see products that say: not for sale in "geographic location", or similar such phrases - they could say it until they are blue in the face, but I have no intention of obeying, they are merely imagining that they have the right to restrict things in that fashion (with exception of products that the local gov has restricted of course, but that's rare, usually they are trying to divide the market).
I've retracted my issue with losing oxygen, but I still want to reply to what you wrote.
Subsequently removing the CO2 makes no difference to that.
Not correct, because if you leave the CO2 there, a plant can use it and return the oxygen to you. If you sequester the CO2 that oxygen is not coming back.
However I have since discovered that there is a LOT of oxygen out there, so in practice it doesn't actually matter. (Far more then I ever imagined - I always assumed there was approximately as much as is cycled per year, turns out there is something like 1 million times as much, which just boggles my mind.)
I've retracted my issue with losing oxygen, but I still want to reply to what you wrote.
Subsequently removing the CO2 makes no difference to that.
Not correct, because if you leave the CO2 there, a plant can use it and return the oxygen to you. If you sequester the CO2 that oxygen is not coming back.
However I have since discovered that there is a LOT of oxygen out there, so in practice it doesn't actually matter. (Far more then I ever imagined - I always assumed there was approximately as much as is cycled per year, turns out there is something like 1 million times as much, which just boggles my mind.)
You are right, I should have checked the numbers first.
Seems that total biomass growth (of plants) per year is about 170 billion tons. And animals are certainly less then that. So I guess even without non-food producing plants, we could go quite a while with the oxygen we have left.
With numbers like these it amazes me that humans can make the slightest dent.
Um - did you forget how the CO2 got there in the first place? You burned carbon with oxygen. Meaning if you remove the CO2, you also remove oxygen.
And as far as how much CO2 vs oxygen there is, I don't have any actual data, but I have a feeling that the only reason there is so little CO2 is that plants are very good at removing nearly all of it - but they give back the oxygen. If we did that the oxygen is gone.
Don't look just at current ratios, but rather at the cycling, i.e. how much oxygen is burned (via fire or animals) and then "regenerated" (by plants) per year. I have no solid information, but I am guessing that we cycle nearly all the oxygen in the atmosphere pretty often.
Something very important that this project and other ideas to sequester CO2 have forgotten: what about the Oxygen?
If you start sequestering CO2 on a massive scale, it could work to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere - but at the same time you will permanently remove Oxygen from the atmosphere as well!
Now sure, at 21% there is plenty, but if removing CO2 is the plan, and it's a long term plan, slowly but surely there will be less and less oxygen in the air.
"The difference is one bulb blows off mercury in your home where you breathe it, whereas little of the coal plant's emissions will end up in your house. You really do not want mercury in the air of your house because nearly all inhaled mercury enters the blood stream. Even if the power plant's emissions ended up in your food, most of that just passes right through you."
What!?!
You are very mixed up. The only way the mercury from the bulb goes into you is if you eat the bulb.
The solution is very simple don't eat CFL's!
On the other hand the mercury from coal goes in the air, I suppose you could avoid that mercury by not breathing, but that's hard for most people.
Did you somehow imagine the CFL releases mercury while it runs? It doesn't, the mercury stays in the glass.
And your thing about eating vs breathing: you have it exactly backwards. Breathing mercury vapor is far less harmful then eating mercury contaminated food.
Why? Because elemental mercury (i.e atoms of it, rather then mercury containing molecules) AKA the mercury vapor, has very little biological activity, so will just pass right out (most of it anyway). On the other hand mercury in food (like fish) is Methyl-Mercury, WAY WAY WAY more harmful, and very toxic.
"beautiful confirmation" of standard theories?????
What standard theories? Dark matter does not exist, as least not as far as anyone (except astronomers with good imaginations) knows. There is a very nice (and complete!) standard model of physics, and dark matter holds no place.
Regular matter, that is simply dark - i.e. cold, and not emiting light, does not bother me. But making up particles no one has ever seen just because you don't understand what you are seing is fitting facts to the data.
Scientists often discuss new theories, etc, and in that context dark matter has it's place, but to claim it exists - as this story does - without being able to actually measure anything is quite silly and premature. If you don't understand something, say so, don't invent plausable explanations that have nothing supporting them except your lack of knowledge.
The problem is not the low voltage cable - it's that since it's meant for high voltage cable someone could install some later not realizing that there is some low voltage stuff there.
Yes, there really is a code about that - not mixing high and low voltage in the same conduit.
You can, I guess, claim that the conduit is "low voltage". But if it looks like it's for high voltage you might not get away with that.
There's a Jewish legend/midrash that before this world was created, God created a world based on Strict Justice. The world was not able to survive, and God had to start over and this time created a world based on Mercy.
If you managed to do the same thing in the US, I don't think it would remain stable for long. It's the nature of people that sometimes they do the wrong thing, and you have to give them a chance to change their ways, without being too strict in the punishment.
It's true for children as well BTW. If you punish every little infraction you don't end up with well behaved kids, quite the opposite.
You can absorb gasses via the digestive tract, if you have farts building up in there some of them will be aborbed, and will circulate.
Eventually reaching the smell cells. Via the Sensory adaptation mechanisim mentioned above, you end up not being able to smell parts of your own fart, so it doesn't smell as bad to you when it's in the room.
PS. I have nothing to back this up, I made it up myself. Is it true? Where are those Ig Nobel researchers?
But you have never been on the other end - being spammed by people like you who send these stupid messages to every forged from address they get.
There was a time that these message were the number 1 type of spam I was getting! It's better (for me now), but I'm sure other people now have to deal with it.
You are basically asking everyone else to do your work for you, instead of dealing with the spam yourself.
And and don't forget - what happens if two of you both have these confirm filters in place? I hope that at the very minimum you do two things: never ever send a confirm message to the same address more then once (maybe no more then once a week). And two every address you email to gets added automatically to your whitelist.
Just install a bayesian spam filter and stop making everyone else do your work for you. I use CRM114 - it advertises a %99.75 correct rate - and delivers!
"The clock-timer switch connected to our porch light has a note in the directions not to use it with CFs. I'm not sure if it's a real issue or just legal-paranoia ass-covering."
It because the timer switches draw power _through_ the light bulb filament.
They don't draw enough to let the bulb light up, then it's what powers the timer.
CFL's don't pass power through in the same fasion.
Instead what you need is a timer with a separate wire for power.
There is an interesting legal rule in Jewish law: (only for monetary matters) if the court knows about something you did because YOU told them, you can not be fined.
You are required to repay the money stolen or whatever, but no punitary fines can be applied.
Also in more serious cases (capital, assault, etc) a person is not allowed to testify against himself, any such statements are automatically ignored.
"Notice that both objects are being released at the same time; the motion of the Earth towards them is not different for one object versus the other"
You seem to have forgotten we are talking about how fast objects fall, not comparing them. Go back and read the post that started this.
"presuming it was significant at all (which it is not; the Earth weighs about 10^26 times what a 5kg lead pellet weighs)."
WOW! you don't say, I have never heard of this before, the earth is heavy? The fact I said this at least 3 times already didn't clue you in?
"When you drop two objects from the same height, at the same time, in a vaccuum, they will hit the ground at exactly the same time."
And if I tie two objects together and drop them, they will also hit the ground at the same time. Please don't act stupid. Just because in your specific setup you made them hit the ground at the same time, does not mean that heavy and light objects fall at the same speed (relative to whatever they are falling toward).
"And for your next trick, will you acknowledge the difference between being correct, being wrong, and being an obnoxious pedantic git?"
So I guess you live by truthiness. Someone wanting to be correct is automatically "obnoxious pedantic git", that's nice, enjoy living in a world where it's more important not to rock the boat, never mind what's really happening.
PS. Little tip when arguing: the guy who starts with the name calling usually has the weaker position (see ad hominem).
"Actually, if you go to a decent science museum, they should have an exhibit where they show something like a feather and lead shot being dropped in a vaccuum...really and truely, they fall at exactly the same speed and hit the ground at the same time."
No, not "really and truely", only "approximately". I guess you missed where I wrote the difference on earth is not noticable. But just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
You have an error in your equation: you forgot about the acceleration of the EARTH toward the test object! Your equation is only half of what actually happens. When you drop an item on earth, the object falls toward the earth - but at the same time the earth moves 'up' toward the object. The heavier the object the faster the earth moves up.
Now just because the earth is really big, and moves so little, doesn't mean it doesn't move. It does, it has to, you just can't see it.
And while on the subject of equations that are only approximately true there is the well known thing about pendelums always swinging at the same time period regardless of the angle or mass. Also true only to an approximation. In reality the time period DOES depend on the angle (and the mass), just not by much.
See you need to distinguish between stuff that is emperically 100% correct, and stuff that is USEFULLY correct.
I'm perfectly happy using equations for falling, or pendlums that are only approximately true. They are close enough. But it's equally important to know when they are NOT close enough. Partial knowledge is not a good thing.
"Many years ago people believed that heavy things fell faster than light things. They didn't bother testing this theory because they knew it to be true. Then, one day, someone tested that theory and found it was false."
Bit of a problem in your argument there - heavy thing DO fall faster then light things!
It's just that on earth, the earth is so much larger then the falling item, that if the faller is a little bigger or a little smaller it's not much noticable.
OTOH if you get some nice large objects - say the moon vs an asteroid falling on earth, the moon will fall faster. (Well technically the earth will fall up to the moon, but from the POV of the earth the moon is falling faster then the asteroid.)
But even with small objects on earth, heavy things do fall faster. (But good luck measuring the difference.)
Some sources say that was the reason behind the problems with cain and able, they were fighting over a girl.
Remember that the bible does not list every single person born, just the most notable ones (typically men because they usually did the most stuff, but girls are mentioned if they did anything notable). There were lots of other children born to Adam and Eve (boys and girls) after Cain and Able, and Cain and Able were born with girl twins. Those girls were not mentioned because they didn't do anything notable, and most of the other children born after Cain and Able (boys and girls) are not mentioned for the same reason.
I don't know of any sources that state when marriage between close relatives becomes forbidden. But I'm quite certain that Adam and Eve had lots of children, so it could have taken just one generation for siblings to be forbidden (according to the bible cousins are not forbidden to each other, although according to wikipedia the church seems to have expanded the forbidden list).
Slashdot Mirror
No, unfortunately this is incorrect. bzip2 probably will ignore data after the end of the stream, plus it has future usage blocks that are likely ignored. OOo also has areas that are ignored by the editor. (I'm generalizing, I didn't check either program, but many - can I say most? - programs have such areas.)
Using those areas you can add whatever padding data you need to "fix" the hash after adding your fake data.
Recording the file length makes it harder, true. But if you are the one generating the hash you can pre-padd the data to give you a space later for this manipulation.
Have a look: http://www.cits.rub.de/MD5Collisions/ the page has links to two postscript files with identical MD5's. Quite different content though.
I know this seems obvious, but it actually wrong.
SH1 and MD5 are both basically the same algorithm, with some changes, so it's quite possible to find something that matches both.
And: how do you think a MD5 hash works? It takes two unrelated hashes, and combines them, since after all, how likely is it that a change will properly affect both hashes? Well you know the answer to that since MD5 has been semi-broken.
So far no one has come up with an unbreakable hash, it apparently is very hard to do. All the exiting hashes (from MD1 and up, and including SHA*) are all based on the same idea, each new version adding some new twist to make it work better, but the basic premise for all of them is based on the work of one guy.
Interesting post, but you made a fundamental error: the ability to "own" intellectual property is a function of the law, not a basic moral premise (eg: the concept didn't even exist until modern times, while even animals understand stealing physical items).
As such, that "right" is limited only to what the law allows it and no more.
And while I'm not going to argue if fair use allows or doesn't allow cracking a DVD, I will say that for people to argue the law is wrong does not make them "dumb-stupid"!
It merely means they don't agree with the law, and are engaging in civil disobedience.
You are taking the existence of intellectual property as a given without even realizing you are doing so (if you even realized it's possible for it not to exist you would not a written what you did). So perhaps you should label yourself as a "dumb-stupid".
Remember: just because someone said "I reserve the right to blah blah blah" doesn't mean they actually have that right! Either I have to _give_ them that right, or the law does.
Just as an example: I often see products that say: not for sale in "geographic location", or similar such phrases - they could say it until they are blue in the face, but I have no intention of obeying, they are merely imagining that they have the right to restrict things in that fashion (with exception of products that the local gov has restricted of course, but that's rare, usually they are trying to divide the market).
Not correct, because if you leave the CO2 there, a plant can use it and return the oxygen to you. If you sequester the CO2 that oxygen is not coming back.
However I have since discovered that there is a LOT of oxygen out there, so in practice it doesn't actually matter. (Far more then I ever imagined - I always assumed there was approximately as much as is cycled per year, turns out there is something like 1 million times as much, which just boggles my mind.)
You are right, I should have checked the numbers first.
Seems that total biomass growth (of plants) per year is about 170 billion tons. And animals are certainly less then that. So I guess even without non-food producing plants, we could go quite a while with the oxygen we have left.
With numbers like these it amazes me that humans can make the slightest dent.
Um - did you forget how the CO2 got there in the first place? You burned carbon with oxygen. Meaning if you remove the CO2, you also remove oxygen.
And as far as how much CO2 vs oxygen there is, I don't have any actual data, but I have a feeling that the only reason there is so little CO2 is that plants are very good at removing nearly all of it - but they give back the oxygen. If we did that the oxygen is gone.
Don't look just at current ratios, but rather at the cycling, i.e. how much oxygen is burned (via fire or animals) and then "regenerated" (by plants) per year. I have no solid information, but I am guessing that we cycle nearly all the oxygen in the atmosphere pretty often.
Something very important that this project and other ideas to sequester CO2 have forgotten: what about the Oxygen?
If you start sequestering CO2 on a massive scale, it could work to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere - but at the same time you will permanently remove Oxygen from the atmosphere as well!
Now sure, at 21% there is plenty, but if removing CO2 is the plan, and it's a long term plan, slowly but surely there will be less and less oxygen in the air.
"The difference is one bulb blows off mercury in your home where you breathe it, whereas little of the coal plant's emissions will end up in your house. You really do not want mercury in the air of your house because nearly all inhaled mercury enters the blood stream. Even if the power plant's emissions ended up in your food, most of that just passes right through you."
What!?!
You are very mixed up. The only way the mercury from the bulb goes into you is if you eat the bulb.
The solution is very simple don't eat CFL's!
On the other hand the mercury from coal goes in the air, I suppose you could avoid that mercury by not breathing, but that's hard for most people.
Did you somehow imagine the CFL releases mercury while it runs? It doesn't, the mercury stays in the glass.
And your thing about eating vs breathing: you have it exactly backwards. Breathing mercury vapor is far less harmful then eating mercury contaminated food.
Why? Because elemental mercury (i.e atoms of it, rather then mercury containing molecules) AKA the mercury vapor, has very little biological activity, so will just pass right out (most of it anyway). On the other hand mercury in food (like fish) is Methyl-Mercury, WAY WAY WAY more harmful, and very toxic.
I shouldn't have used the phrase "is fitting facts to the data", please ignore it, I misstyped. Pretend the sentence just ended in a ?
"beautiful confirmation" of standard theories?????
What standard theories? Dark matter does not exist, as least not as far as anyone (except astronomers with good imaginations) knows. There is a very nice (and complete!) standard model of physics, and dark matter holds no place.
I should qualify, I'm talking about theroes of non-baryonic dark matter and even worse dark energy.
Regular matter, that is simply dark - i.e. cold, and not emiting light, does not bother me. But making up particles no one has ever seen just because you don't understand what you are seing is fitting facts to the data.
Scientists often discuss new theories, etc, and in that context dark matter has it's place, but to claim it exists - as this story does - without being able to actually measure anything is quite silly and premature. If you don't understand something, say so, don't invent plausable explanations that have nothing supporting them except your lack of knowledge.
You have it backwards.
The problem is not the low voltage cable - it's that since it's meant for high voltage cable someone could install some later not realizing that there is some low voltage stuff there.
Yes, there really is a code about that - not mixing high and low voltage in the same conduit.
You can, I guess, claim that the conduit is "low voltage". But if it looks like it's for high voltage you might not get away with that.
There's a Jewish legend/midrash that before this world was created, God created a world based on Strict Justice. The world was not able to survive, and God had to start over and this time created a world based on Mercy.
If you managed to do the same thing in the US, I don't think it would remain stable for long. It's the nature of people that sometimes they do the wrong thing, and you have to give them a chance to change their ways, without being too strict in the punishment.
It's true for children as well BTW. If you punish every little infraction you don't end up with well behaved kids, quite the opposite.
Actually there is another option.
You can absorb gasses via the digestive tract, if you have farts building up in there some of them will be aborbed, and will circulate.
Eventually reaching the smell cells. Via the Sensory adaptation mechanisim mentioned above, you end up not being able to smell parts of your own fart, so it doesn't smell as bad to you when it's in the room.
PS. I have nothing to back this up, I made it up myself. Is it true? Where are those Ig Nobel researchers?
I think, but am not sure, that it's copying the floating point value bit for bit into an integer. It's not converting the float into an int.
CRM114
Does exactly what you are asking. And it works. It advertises a %99.75 correct rate, and delivers.
That is an amazingly bad idea.
Yah, I know tons of people do it.
But you have never been on the other end - being spammed by people like you who send these stupid messages to every forged from address they get.
There was a time that these message were the number 1 type of spam I was getting! It's better (for me now), but I'm sure other people now have to deal with it.
You are basically asking everyone else to do your work for you, instead of dealing with the spam yourself.
And and don't forget - what happens if two of you both have these confirm filters in place? I hope that at the very minimum you do two things: never ever send a confirm message to the same address more then once (maybe no more then once a week). And two every address you email to gets added automatically to your whitelist.
Just install a bayesian spam filter and stop making everyone else do your work for you. I use CRM114 - it advertises a %99.75 correct rate - and delivers!
What you need is called Compression, or Dynamic range reduction.
i on
Hopefully you can google something using those keywords.
(I can't give you direct advice because it depends on your OS, Hardware and Software, and you didn't say what those were. Use google.)
Also see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_level_compress
"The clock-timer switch connected to our porch light has a note in the directions not to use it with CFs. I'm not sure if it's a real issue or just legal-paranoia ass-covering."
It because the timer switches draw power _through_ the light bulb filament.
They don't draw enough to let the bulb light up, then it's what powers the timer.
CFL's don't pass power through in the same fasion.
Instead what you need is a timer with a separate wire for power.
There is an interesting legal rule in Jewish law: (only for monetary matters) if the court knows about something you did because YOU told them, you can not be fined.
You are required to repay the money stolen or whatever, but no punitary fines can be applied.
Also in more serious cases (capital, assault, etc) a person is not allowed to testify against himself, any such statements are automatically ignored.
"Notice that both objects are being released at the same time; the motion of the Earth towards them is not different for one object versus the other"
You seem to have forgotten we are talking about how fast objects fall, not comparing them. Go back and read the post that started this.
"presuming it was significant at all (which it is not; the Earth weighs about 10^26 times what a 5kg lead pellet weighs)."
WOW! you don't say, I have never heard of this before, the earth is heavy? The fact I said this at least 3 times already didn't clue you in?
"When you drop two objects from the same height, at the same time, in a vaccuum, they will hit the ground at exactly the same time."
And if I tie two objects together and drop them, they will also hit the ground at the same time. Please don't act stupid. Just because in your specific setup you made them hit the ground at the same time, does not mean that heavy and light objects fall at the same speed (relative to whatever they are falling toward).
"And for your next trick, will you acknowledge the difference between being correct, being wrong, and being an obnoxious pedantic git?"
So I guess you live by truthiness. Someone wanting to be correct is automatically "obnoxious pedantic git", that's nice, enjoy living in a world where it's more important not to rock the boat, never mind what's really happening.
PS. Little tip when arguing: the guy who starts with the name calling usually has the weaker position (see ad hominem).
"Actually, if you go to a decent science museum, they should have an exhibit where they show something like a feather and lead shot being dropped in a vaccuum...really and truely, they fall at exactly the same speed and hit the ground at the same time."
No, not "really and truely", only "approximately". I guess you missed where I wrote the difference on earth is not noticable. But just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
You have an error in your equation: you forgot about the acceleration of the EARTH toward the test object! Your equation is only half of what actually happens. When you drop an item on earth, the object falls toward the earth - but at the same time the earth moves 'up' toward the object. The heavier the object the faster the earth moves up.
Now just because the earth is really big, and moves so little, doesn't mean it doesn't move. It does, it has to, you just can't see it.
And while on the subject of equations that are only approximately true there is the well known thing about pendelums always swinging at the same time period regardless of the angle or mass. Also true only to an approximation. In reality the time period DOES depend on the angle (and the mass), just not by much.
See you need to distinguish between stuff that is emperically 100% correct, and stuff that is USEFULLY correct.
I'm perfectly happy using equations for falling, or pendlums that are only approximately true. They are close enough. But it's equally important to know when they are NOT close enough. Partial knowledge is not a good thing.
"Many years ago people believed that heavy things fell faster than light things. They didn't bother testing this theory because they knew it to be true. Then, one day, someone tested that theory and found it was false."
Bit of a problem in your argument there - heavy thing DO fall faster then light things!
It's just that on earth, the earth is so much larger then the falling item, that if the faller is a little bigger or a little smaller it's not much noticable.
OTOH if you get some nice large objects - say the moon vs an asteroid falling on earth, the moon will fall faster. (Well technically the earth will fall up to the moon, but from the POV of the earth the moon is falling faster then the asteroid.)
But even with small objects on earth, heavy things do fall faster. (But good luck measuring the difference.)
Adam and Eve had twins (boy and girl).
Some sources say that was the reason behind the problems with cain and able, they were fighting over a girl.
Remember that the bible does not list every single person born, just the most notable ones (typically men because they usually did the most stuff, but girls are mentioned if they did anything notable). There were lots of other children born to Adam and Eve (boys and girls) after Cain and Able, and Cain and Able were born with girl twins. Those girls were not mentioned because they didn't do anything notable, and most of the other children born after Cain and Able (boys and girls) are not mentioned for the same reason.
I don't know of any sources that state when marriage between close relatives becomes forbidden. But I'm quite certain that Adam and Eve had lots of children, so it could have taken just one generation for siblings to be forbidden (according to the bible cousins are not forbidden to each other, although according to wikipedia the church seems to have expanded the forbidden list).
I think you quite missed the entire point.
The neat thing about this stuff is that it's flexible - meaning I can bend my arm which wearing this.
If you don't need to it be flexible, then don't both with this, there are a ton of much simpler things you can use.
And I see little reason for gas lines, (or paint) to be flexible.