It's a fringe brand in that Ferrari is a fringe brand. I don't think most people wouldn't want one but I don't know a soul who has one. Very few have seen them. They aren't exactly a larger brand. IF they can mass produce a model in a reasonable price range comparable to a modern model of car it will take off.
Of course Ferrari is able to do that. They call them Fiats.
so how about keeping it simple. Set the corporate tax to 10% no ifs no buts and get rid of all the bs..
But 10% of what? That's where the real issue is - what is a profit? Payroll taxes and dividend taxes are typically not an issue, it's easy to track money that actually goes to someone's pockets, it's what happens before it's actually given to someone, when it slushes around different country, that is the issue.
Or, translation: Michael Dell tried to buy Dell for cheap, Icahn bought some shares and made noise saying it was worth more. Michael Dell ended up paying more. Icahn was right.
There's no reason why civil service can't be a condition of citizenship. Military service is something different, I get that you might not want to kill people. But conscientious objection to sitting at a desk doing administrative work? On what basis? Cruelty to paper?
It is slavery. I object to being enslaved against my will, even for mundane tasks.
It is instantaneous, but you can't measure zero - all you can measure is "it took less than x picoseconds" where x depends on your timer's precision, and from this infer "it went at least this fast".
Eve is allowed to ask Alice if she is willing to sell shares at 24.99$, because of free speech. Alice is allowed to say that, yes, she does, because of free speech. She would also be allowed to say "I won't tell you, I want a firm offer". And they're allowed to do that on or off Wall Street, and to rinse and repeat as long as they like.
The real question is that, given that Wall Street is so volatile and disconnected from reality, why is its index still considered an important number in decision making?
How would insurance of bitcoins even work? It seems particularly challenging for many reasons.
Generally, insurance policies are written for things with a strongly-known approximate value. (...) Bit coins are highly variable - if I take out a policy against 10,000 bit coins, and they're lost, what value would the policy pay out based on?
That's easy. If you take out an insurance on 10'000 bitcoins and they get stolen, then the insurance company would compensate you by giving you 10'000 bitcoins.
Meanwhile, you would keep paying your premiums in real coins.
Unalienable individual rights was a revolutionary thing at the time and is still forbidden in many "civilized" countries, Canada and the UK for example lacks freedom of speech (and have a monarchy! doh!).
Canadian Charter of Rights (part of the constitution), 2:
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Most of the people you meet in real-life, someone you know has met in real life before, and has added to facebook.
It's not that hard to see that if someone suddenly becomes friend with people in your social circle, they are likely to become friends with you too.
You fail sir. The 4S reactor is placed 30m underground in a concrete and steel containment vessel. The sodium is encased inside the reactor and cannot come into contact with anything outside the vessel. It's a sealed unit.
Only until there is an earthquake strong enough to unseal it. The current reactor was also placed within a concrete and steel reinforcement vessel....
The US law says: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;".
Now, I agree with you that this is not a natural law. All it would take is a simple act of congress to change it. But, the law being what it is.... You can't argue in front of the supreme court that you think a law is wrong. To do that, you have to go to congress.
I scanned through the article and from what I see, they have made an equivalence between the maths used in string theory and the maths used in entanglement. This is interesting in itself, because this allowed them to port a result from string theory to entanglement theory, a result which was not known before and could be falsified.
However, this is like saying that the mathematical theory used to count apples harvested from an orchard (addition of natural numbers) is the same as the mathematical theory behind the algorithm the slashcode uses to count the number of comments below threshold (addition of natural numbers). It allows one to port result from ancient mathematics to modern applications without having to rederive everything from first principles; it does not mean that sub-threshold comments are, deep down, really made of apples.
This is equivalent to the average discharge of a middlish river. The Shannon, for example, has a discharge of 186 m^3/s. The Potomac has ~300m^3/s on average. The River Thames is only ~65m^3/s.
So, stand on the London bridge and have a look below. The total usage of oil in the world is twice that, every single second.
Sorry, I meant "enforce your contract". However, I am certain you will have to sue one or two to force them to actually respect the contract before they start taking the clause seriously.
No, if the checksum doesn't match you cancel the election, run it again with paper ballots and charge all the costs of doing so to the company that was responsible for the security of the machines, suing them into bankruptcy.
Because Eve CAN intercept the message. If she intercepts the OTP, then you will know it, therefore you will not use it and no information is compromised. If you transmit the message directly, however, she can listen in and you will only realize it when it's too late.
Erm, part of the key quantum key setup process requires a classical channel after transmission in order to exchange information about the quantum bits which were just sent. This isn't just about some password being whispered in advance. If you're talking about some other algorithm, e.g. for general secured data transfer, could you give more specifics?
The classical exchange serves to authenticate some of the qubits that were sent, and those qubits are emphatically NOT used to generate the key. The qubits used for that purpose are not exchanged through the classical channel.
Regardless, classical crypto is about the strength of encryption, and cares little for people reading ciphertext. The quantum crypto promise is of a totally different flavour, promising physical obscurity. If its response is "well of course we can only guarantee that Eve is not intercepting once we have guaranteed that Eve is not intercepting!" then, etc.
More specifically, it guarantees that if Eve intercepts the message, you will know it, and therefore you will throw away whatever OTP you have generated without using it. Yes, this means Eve is able to completely break communication (which she could also do, for example, with an axe). What she cannot do is intercept while staying undetected.
(1) Neither of your scenarios covers the case where both the quantum and the secondary channel are created by Eve, not just the secondary channel;
Yes, they do. If Eve eavesdrop on the quantum channel, the correlations will not be there and the OTP will not be established. If the channel is created by Eve, it does not matter. If Eve completely replaces the data sent by Alice, then the correlations will not be there. There is no way to fake these correlations.
(2) How is the relationship between quantum and classical channels informed to Bob by Alice?
You mean, which channel is quantum and which is classical? That can be public knowledge.
(3) If your solution is to transport a one time pad at some earlier point "by some other means", then you're copping out twice over, as now we need another classical channel to transmit one time pads long enough for message exchanges.
There you are right. The protocol must work without being seeded first.
No, that's the whole point of the protocol. Even if the secondary channel is insecure, it cannot be faked.
-If a spy tries to fool you by taking control of the secondary channel (for example by impersonating Alice), then the protocol will fail as the spy cannot reproduce the correlations you expect to see.
-If the channel is just listened to, it does not matter because no information about the one-time pad is exchanged on it. The only information Eve can get is "It seems their transmission succeeded" or "It seems it didn't".
You need a secondary channel, but it doesn't have to be magic. You can use, like, pigeons, or mail, or a phone call, or if you're technologically inclined, the internet.
It is distributing a one-time pad that is difficult. Once you have that, communication is easy.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a fringe brand in that Ferrari is a fringe brand. I don't think most people wouldn't want one but I don't know a soul who has one. Very few have seen them. They aren't exactly a larger brand. IF they can mass produce a model in a reasonable price range comparable to a modern model of car it will take off.
Of course Ferrari is able to do that. They call them Fiats.
so how about keeping it simple. Set the corporate tax to 10% no ifs no buts and get rid of all the bs..
But 10% of what? That's where the real issue is - what is a profit? Payroll taxes and dividend taxes are typically not an issue, it's easy to track money that actually goes to someone's pockets, it's what happens before it's actually given to someone, when it slushes around different country, that is the issue.
Or, translation: Michael Dell tried to buy Dell for cheap, Icahn bought some shares and made noise saying it was worth more. Michael Dell ended up paying more. Icahn was right.
Why?
There's no reason why civil service can't be a condition of citizenship. Military service is something different, I get that you might not want to kill people. But conscientious objection to sitting at a desk doing administrative work? On what basis? Cruelty to paper?
It is slavery. I object to being enslaved against my will, even for mundane tasks.
It is instantaneous, but you can't measure zero - all you can measure is "it took less than x picoseconds" where x depends on your timer's precision, and from this infer "it went at least this fast".
I just hope conference attendees are ready for 51% of the sessions to be held in French,
This is patently false.
and all printed materials being predominantly in French, as required by law.
This may be true - it'll have both languages.
Eve is allowed to ask Alice if she is willing to sell shares at 24.99$, because of free speech. Alice is allowed to say that, yes, she does, because of free speech. She would also be allowed to say "I won't tell you, I want a firm offer". And they're allowed to do that on or off Wall Street, and to rinse and repeat as long as they like.
The real question is that, given that Wall Street is so volatile and disconnected from reality, why is its index still considered an important number in decision making?
Yes, but beware of the scare quotes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19617175
(reposted while logged in)
How would insurance of bitcoins even work? It seems particularly challenging for many reasons. Generally, insurance policies are written for things with a strongly-known approximate value. (...) Bit coins are highly variable - if I take out a policy against 10,000 bit coins, and they're lost, what value would the policy pay out based on?
That's easy. If you take out an insurance on 10'000 bitcoins and they get stolen, then the insurance company would compensate you by giving you 10'000 bitcoins. Meanwhile, you would keep paying your premiums in real coins.
"And despite the reparations, Ticketmaster can continue to profit off transactions — they just have to say they're doing so on their website."
No, really? A private enterprise is allowed to profit off its business provided it does so in a manner that is not fraudulent? Shocking!
Unalienable individual rights was a revolutionary thing at the time and is still forbidden in many "civilized" countries, Canada and the UK for example lacks freedom of speech (and have a monarchy! doh!).
Canadian Charter of Rights (part of the constitution), 2: Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.
Most of the people you meet in real-life, someone you know has met in real life before, and has added to facebook. It's not that hard to see that if someone suddenly becomes friend with people in your social circle, they are likely to become friends with you too.
You fail sir. The 4S reactor is placed 30m underground in a concrete and steel containment vessel. The sodium is encased inside the reactor and cannot come into contact with anything outside the vessel. It's a sealed unit.
Only until there is an earthquake strong enough to unseal it. The current reactor was also placed within a concrete and steel reinforcement vessel....
The US law says: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;".
Now, I agree with you that this is not a natural law. All it would take is a simple act of congress to change it. But, the law being what it is.... You can't argue in front of the supreme court that you think a law is wrong. To do that, you have to go to congress.
I scanned through the article and from what I see, they have made an equivalence between the maths used in string theory and the maths used in entanglement. This is interesting in itself, because this allowed them to port a result from string theory to entanglement theory, a result which was not known before and could be falsified.
However, this is like saying that the mathematical theory used to count apples harvested from an orchard (addition of natural numbers) is the same as the mathematical theory behind the algorithm the slashcode uses to count the number of comments below threshold (addition of natural numbers). It allows one to port result from ancient mathematics to modern applications without having to rederive everything from first principles; it does not mean that sub-threshold comments are, deep down, really made of apples.
Normally, I would find this hilarious. I guess it's a bad day.
To create a picture in your mind:
86M barrels per day corresponds to ~158 m^3/s.
This is equivalent to the average discharge of a middlish river. The Shannon, for example, has a discharge of 186 m^3/s. The Potomac has ~300m^3/s on average. The River Thames is only ~65m^3/s.
So, stand on the London bridge and have a look below. The total usage of oil in the world is twice that, every single second.
Sorry, I meant "enforce your contract". However, I am certain you will have to sue one or two to force them to actually respect the contract before they start taking the clause seriously.
No, if the checksum doesn't match you cancel the election, run it again with paper ballots and charge all the costs of doing so to the company that was responsible for the security of the machines, suing them into bankruptcy.
Wouldn't it be easier to make quarters? What security features are there on them?
Because Eve CAN intercept the message. If she intercepts the OTP, then you will know it, therefore you will not use it and no information is compromised. If you transmit the message directly, however, she can listen in and you will only realize it when it's too late.
Erm, part of the key quantum key setup process requires a classical channel after transmission in order to exchange information about the quantum bits which were just sent. This isn't just about some password being whispered in advance. If you're talking about some other algorithm, e.g. for general secured data transfer, could you give more specifics?
The classical exchange serves to authenticate some of the qubits that were sent, and those qubits are emphatically NOT used to generate the key. The qubits used for that purpose are not exchanged through the classical channel.
Regardless, classical crypto is about the strength of encryption, and cares little for people reading ciphertext. The quantum crypto promise is of a totally different flavour, promising physical obscurity. If its response is "well of course we can only guarantee that Eve is not intercepting once we have guaranteed that Eve is not intercepting!" then, etc.
More specifically, it guarantees that if Eve intercepts the message, you will know it, and therefore you will throw away whatever OTP you have generated without using it. Yes, this means Eve is able to completely break communication (which she could also do, for example, with an axe). What she cannot do is intercept while staying undetected.
(1) Neither of your scenarios covers the case where both the quantum and the secondary channel are created by Eve, not just the secondary channel;
Yes, they do. If Eve eavesdrop on the quantum channel, the correlations will not be there and the OTP will not be established. If the channel is created by Eve, it does not matter. If Eve completely replaces the data sent by Alice, then the correlations will not be there. There is no way to fake these correlations.
(2) How is the relationship between quantum and classical channels informed to Bob by Alice?
You mean, which channel is quantum and which is classical? That can be public knowledge.
(3) If your solution is to transport a one time pad at some earlier point "by some other means", then you're copping out twice over, as now we need another classical channel to transmit one time pads long enough for message exchanges.
There you are right. The protocol must work without being seeded first.
No, that's the whole point of the protocol. Even if the secondary channel is insecure, it cannot be faked.
-If a spy tries to fool you by taking control of the secondary channel (for example by impersonating Alice), then the protocol will fail as the spy cannot reproduce the correlations you expect to see.
-If the channel is just listened to, it does not matter because no information about the one-time pad is exchanged on it. The only information Eve can get is "It seems their transmission succeeded" or "It seems it didn't".
You need a secondary channel, but it doesn't have to be magic. You can use, like, pigeons, or mail, or a phone call, or if you're technologically inclined, the internet.
It is distributing a one-time pad that is difficult. Once you have that, communication is easy.