As of TrueCrypt 4.0, it is possible to write data to an outer volume without risking that a hidden volume within it will get damaged (overwritten).
When mounting an outer volume, the user can enter two passwords: One for the outer volume, and the other for a hidden volume within it, which he wants to protect. In this mode, TrueCrypt does not actually mount the hidden volume. It only decrypts its header and retrieves information about the size of the hidden volume (from the decrypted header). Then, the outer volume is mounted and any attempt to save data to the area of the hidden volume will be rejected (until the outer volume is dismounted).
Note that TrueCrypt never modifies the filesystem (e.g., information about allocated clusters, amount of free space, etc.) within the outer volume in any way. As soon as the volume is dismounted, the protection is lost. When the volume is mounted again, it is not possible to determine whether the volume has used hidden volume protection or not. The hidden volume protection can be activated only by users who supply the correct password (and/or keyfiles) for the hidden volume (each time they mount the outer volume). For more details, please see the section Protection of Hidden Volumes Against Damage in the documentation.
Apart from the knowledge we obtain? Well no. Duh. The knowledge we obtain from these vehicles is the only benefit anyone ever intended or expected to get from them, so if you deliberately exclude that from the calculations, then of course we can't justify it.
The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology club.
I have no doubt that the "blowing the injection manifold" bit was not mechanically accurate, just a throwaway line to explain why it didn't work. However, I'm still pretty sure they couldn't just pour whiskey in the tank and expect it to work. Your gas line antifreeze is basically just alchohol, sure -- but whiskey on the other hand, even if it was 180 proof, is still 10 percent water. Ever try to run a car on watered down gas? Even if they could get it running on whiskey -- do you think the car would still be able to accelerate to 88 mph, the scientifically proven speed at which one is gonna see some serious shit?
In regards to finding some crude oil and distilling it themselves, you are forgetting that they only had a few days until Doc was going to be shot.
In regards to the attempt to run on ethonol, they might have been able to adjust the timing and get it working, if it hadn't blown the entire fuel injection manifold on the first attempt.
The film didn't imply that making a gasoline substitute would be impossible -- only impossible in the very short time they had available.
The jury is still out on that question. There are several billion humans that have not died as of yet. To claim that all of them will die simply because the vast majority of humans born to date have died would be unscientific.
When every human is dead, then we will know for sure.:)
Indeed. I didn't mean to imply (if it came off that way) that special relativity is guaranteed true. But since it seems highly likely to be at least mostly true, that's bad news for any of who would like to see FTL travel without all those pesky paradoxes!
Also, note that special relativity can be completely correct and there could still be some way of traveling faster than light -- it just means causality does not hold, and I don't really have too much trouble accepting that possibility. There is no evidence that causality is a fact of nature, we just like to think it is because it makes the universe seem more sensible to us. Maybe if I go back in time and kill my grandfather the universe doesn't have a problem with that.
Just the way you said: it inflated. The whole point of the theory of inflation is that no matter or energy whatsoever traveled through space-time faster than light. instead, space-time itself expanded very rapidly.
I believe (and hope) it may be possible for information to travel faster than light, but information traveling backwards in time really messes up the universe.
Bad news, friend. Special Relativity demonstrates that if the former is possible, so is the latter.
Medicare is government run socialized medicine, but it is not universal healthcare because it is not, you know, universal. It's something you become eligible for once you reach retirement age.
Me, obviously. I'm the one who wrote it, so it represents my own analysis. I don't preface every statement I make with "In my opinion," because that should be apparent. Whose else would it be?
I do know that we do NOT know enough about how the brain works to definitively say one way or the other that this guy is not telepathic.
We've much to learn about how the brain works, but we already know a great deal about how it does NOT work.
People like you who make grand, sweeping, dismissive statements ("oh you're just imagining it all") for any condition out of the norm are standing in the way of progress, not helping.
Right, because anything that can't be definitively disproved is valid and mustn't be dismissed?
I disagree, and will as a matter of policy continue to dismiss extraordinary claims for which there is no compelling evidence, until such time as compelling evidence is presented. People like you, who lend credence to any notion that can't be disproved are the ones who stand in the way of progress.
You're free to interpret reality in whatever manner you choose, of course; I will do the same.
You may have schizophrenia, and you definitely have a bad case of confirmation bias, but you're not a telepath.
Your account describes that you occasionally know what someone is thinking before they verbalize it, more often with people you know well than with strangers, and more often when there are a lot of people around than with just a few. The first part of that is called "knowing someone" and the second is just statistics. Your dislike of crowds is simply a dislike of crowds.
I'm as much a telepath as you are, to the extent that you described, which is to say not at all. The experiences you are describing are commonplace.
About ten years ago, my lover and best friend died. For months afterward, I could "hear" her in my head with perfect clarity, adding her own remarks and observations to whatever I was doing or thinking about. I did not conclude that I was in communion with her ghost; I just knew her well enough that I knew what she would have said.
I'd love to have direct write access to my own brain -- I'd be able to modify a few lines of code and recompile to change habits or behaviors without all that pesky willpower involved.
No the actual plot was even worse. That neutrinos from the sun, which are supposed to pass through matter without interacting, suddenly and inexplicably changed in some way such that they did interact with the earth's core, and that caused the heating.
2012 was a great movie, as long as you perceived it as a comedy -- I laughed the whole way through it.
For the record, I don't advocate any particular solution either, but I find the idea of copyright expiring at death to be an intriguing enough notion that I'd like to play Devil's advocate for it a while.
Intellectual property is a legal construct. It differs from real property in that it will expire at some point. Therefore, the fact that real property does not expire at death is not a sufficient reason to believe that intellectual property should not.
Neither is the fact that an author has invested time producing something that he expects to make money off of later relevant. It is just that, an investment, and there are no guarantees about the return. Nobody has promised him any profits.
Let's assume copyright does expire at death. If an author works for some time on a book, and drops dead immediately after it is finished, the return on his investment of time will be zero. His intellectual property will disappear. His family has not lost anything that they in fact possessed, they have only lost the expected income that they might have made had the author lived longer.
And so I say again, the answer to that is life insurance. (I'm not shilling for the insurance industry, I promise). They have suffered an unexpected loss of their "intellectual property," which was a known risk from the start, and the system we have in place for mitigating such risks is insurance.
Expiring a copyright at death seems like it would be just as workable as expiring it at a fixed time. Though I expect we would always have to have the time limit as well -- Walt Disney may be dead, by the Walt Disney Corporation may never die.
Why should we deprive that family of that income because of the untimely death of the author?
I don't mean to sound crass or indifferent to the plight of dead authors' families, but. . . why shouldn't we? If a bricklayer, school teacher, or physician dies, that person's family is deprived of their income. If I died, my family would be deprived of my income.
I'm sure there are exceptions with certain pension plans on so forth, but generally speaking, when someone dies, they stop earning a living, and their families are deprived of that income.
What makes the authors' families special? If you want a financial safety net in the event of the primary earner's death, you purchase life insurance. That's what the rest of us do.
Firstly, I am not a manager so you presume to much. I write code, and I could by no means do my job from a tablet. Even working from a laptop introduces a significant productivity penalty for me; I need more screen real estate.
But that's just me and my particular job functions. I am not so arrogant as to presume that people performing functions other than mine aren't doing "real" work, just because their output isn't an executable or some other digital artifact.
If you asked my father, he would probably say that writing software isn't doing "real" work either, on account of how it doesn't produce any physical artifact.
If your work computer (laptop) can really be replaced by a tablet, then you don't do much real work with it.
For people who write code, maybe. I can see a tablet being a perfectly suitable work machine for a manager whose job consists of going to meetings, reading documents, making decisions, and sending and receiving emails. That description fits plenty of people.
I hate to be yet another voice claiming great iPad battery life against your direct experience, but. . . seriously, did you have a defective unit or something? In my experience a few hours of reading won't even drop my battery gauge by more than a few percent. Hell a few hours of video isn't even a problem.
The only problem I ever have with battery life is when I want to completely drain it, as they say one should occasionally do. I think the damn thing harvests power from ambient radio waves.
who here has gotten a tetanus vaccine? It's every ten years...I know I've missed at least one, possible two.)
How did you manage that? Every time I go to a clinic for anything, they ask me when my last tetanus booster was, and if I can't tell them exactly how many years it has been, they assume I'm due and give me one. I'm 33 and I've had the booster at least 8 times.
I think you are wrong that that would resolve the issue.
Apple isn't forcing everyone with a web page to give up 30% for any purchase from an iPad
No, not for any purchase from an iPad. Obviously. If I use Safari to order a hard drive from newgg, Apple doesn't give a shit.
But as I understand it, their policy IS violated whenever an iOS app gets paid content by means other than an in-app purchase. The button that opens Amazon's web store in Safari is not what they have a problem with per se, but the fact that the app is used exclusively to download and view paid content that you can't buy through the app store.
Even if you buy the ebook by visiting the website from your computer, the kindle app, when opened, contacts Amazon's servers and checks if there is any newly purchased content for it to download. By the almighty law of King Steve, that's a problem.
Is the world going to end? No. And in all likelyhood I expect Apple will back off if the outcry is big enough. But if not, then I think it's very possible we end up with higher prices, or a Kindle app that only gets content by syncing through iTunes, which amounts to a crippled app in my book.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh huh. A few centuries ago would be 65 years before the United States declared independence, and a full 73 years before the revolutionary war ended.
Methinks you troll.
Here. . . let me look up this easily searchable information for you: http://www.truecrypt.org/hiddenvolume
Farnsworth did not invent the finglonger, though he did invent a device to show him what it would have been like if he had.
Apart from the knowledge we obtain? Well no. Duh. The knowledge we obtain from these vehicles is the only benefit anyone ever intended or expected to get from them, so if you deliberately exclude that from the calculations, then of course we can't justify it.
The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology club.
I have no doubt that the "blowing the injection manifold" bit was not mechanically accurate, just a throwaway line to explain why it didn't work. However, I'm still pretty sure they couldn't just pour whiskey in the tank and expect it to work. Your gas line antifreeze is basically just alchohol, sure -- but whiskey on the other hand, even if it was 180 proof, is still 10 percent water. Ever try to run a car on watered down gas? Even if they could get it running on whiskey -- do you think the car would still be able to accelerate to 88 mph, the scientifically proven speed at which one is gonna see some serious shit?
In regards to finding some crude oil and distilling it themselves, you are forgetting that they only had a few days until Doc was going to be shot.
In regards to the attempt to run on ethonol, they might have been able to adjust the timing and get it working, if it hadn't blown the entire fuel injection manifold on the first attempt.
The film didn't imply that making a gasoline substitute would be impossible -- only impossible in the very short time they had available.
Of course. Especially the ones posted tomorrow.
Man, that franchise has really gone down hill since Happy Rainbow Pony Fair Ground Ride XII.
The jury is still out on that question. There are several billion humans that have not died as of yet. To claim that all of them will die simply because the vast majority of humans born to date have died would be unscientific.
When every human is dead, then we will know for sure. :)
Indeed. I didn't mean to imply (if it came off that way) that special relativity is guaranteed true. But since it seems highly likely to be at least mostly true, that's bad news for any of who would like to see FTL travel without all those pesky paradoxes!
Also, note that special relativity can be completely correct and there could still be some way of traveling faster than light -- it just means causality does not hold, and I don't really have too much trouble accepting that possibility. There is no evidence that causality is a fact of nature, we just like to think it is because it makes the universe seem more sensible to us. Maybe if I go back in time and kill my grandfather the universe doesn't have a problem with that.
Just the way you said: it inflated. The whole point of the theory of inflation is that no matter or energy whatsoever traveled through space-time faster than light. instead, space-time itself expanded very rapidly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
I believe (and hope) it may be possible for information to travel faster than light, but information traveling backwards in time really messes up the universe.
Bad news, friend. Special Relativity demonstrates that if the former is possible, so is the latter.
http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html
Medicare is government run socialized medicine, but it is not universal healthcare because it is not, you know, universal. It's something you become eligible for once you reach retirement age.
Says who?
Me, obviously. I'm the one who wrote it, so it represents my own analysis. I don't preface every statement I make with "In my opinion," because that should be apparent. Whose else would it be?
I do know that we do NOT know enough about how the brain works to definitively say one way or the other that this guy is not telepathic.
We've much to learn about how the brain works, but we already know a great deal about how it does NOT work.
People like you who make grand, sweeping, dismissive statements ("oh you're just imagining it all") for any condition out of the norm are standing in the way of progress, not helping.
Right, because anything that can't be definitively disproved is valid and mustn't be dismissed?
I disagree, and will as a matter of policy continue to dismiss extraordinary claims for which there is no compelling evidence, until such time as compelling evidence is presented. People like you, who lend credence to any notion that can't be disproved are the ones who stand in the way of progress.
You're free to interpret reality in whatever manner you choose, of course; I will do the same.
You may have schizophrenia, and you definitely have a bad case of confirmation bias, but you're not a telepath.
Your account describes that you occasionally know what someone is thinking before they verbalize it, more often with people you know well than with strangers, and more often when there are a lot of people around than with just a few. The first part of that is called "knowing someone" and the second is just statistics. Your dislike of crowds is simply a dislike of crowds.
I'm as much a telepath as you are, to the extent that you described, which is to say not at all. The experiences you are describing are commonplace.
About ten years ago, my lover and best friend died. For months afterward, I could "hear" her in my head with perfect clarity, adding her own remarks and observations to whatever I was doing or thinking about. I did not conclude that I was in communion with her ghost; I just knew her well enough that I knew what she would have said.
I'd love to have direct write access to my own brain -- I'd be able to modify a few lines of code and recompile to change habits or behaviors without all that pesky willpower involved.
No the actual plot was even worse. That neutrinos from the sun, which are supposed to pass through matter without interacting, suddenly and inexplicably changed in some way such that they did interact with the earth's core, and that caused the heating.
2012 was a great movie, as long as you perceived it as a comedy -- I laughed the whole way through it.
Very well argued.
For the record, I don't advocate any particular solution either, but I find the idea of copyright expiring at death to be an intriguing enough notion that I'd like to play Devil's advocate for it a while.
Intellectual property is a legal construct. It differs from real property in that it will expire at some point. Therefore, the fact that real property does not expire at death is not a sufficient reason to believe that intellectual property should not.
Neither is the fact that an author has invested time producing something that he expects to make money off of later relevant. It is just that, an investment, and there are no guarantees about the return. Nobody has promised him any profits.
Let's assume copyright does expire at death. If an author works for some time on a book, and drops dead immediately after it is finished, the return on his investment of time will be zero. His intellectual property will disappear. His family has not lost anything that they in fact possessed, they have only lost the expected income that they might have made had the author lived longer.
And so I say again, the answer to that is life insurance. (I'm not shilling for the insurance industry, I promise). They have suffered an unexpected loss of their "intellectual property," which was a known risk from the start, and the system we have in place for mitigating such risks is insurance.
Expiring a copyright at death seems like it would be just as workable as expiring it at a fixed time. Though I expect we would always have to have the time limit as well -- Walt Disney may be dead, by the Walt Disney Corporation may never die.
Why should we deprive that family of that income because of the untimely death of the author?
I don't mean to sound crass or indifferent to the plight of dead authors' families, but. . . why shouldn't we? If a bricklayer, school teacher, or physician dies, that person's family is deprived of their income. If I died, my family would be deprived of my income.
I'm sure there are exceptions with certain pension plans on so forth, but generally speaking, when someone dies, they stop earning a living, and their families are deprived of that income.
What makes the authors' families special? If you want a financial safety net in the event of the primary earner's death, you purchase life insurance. That's what the rest of us do.
Firstly, I am not a manager so you presume to much. I write code, and I could by no means do my job from a tablet. Even working from a laptop introduces a significant productivity penalty for me; I need more screen real estate.
But that's just me and my particular job functions. I am not so arrogant as to presume that people performing functions other than mine aren't doing "real" work, just because their output isn't an executable or some other digital artifact.
If you asked my father, he would probably say that writing software isn't doing "real" work either, on account of how it doesn't produce any physical artifact.
If your work computer (laptop) can really be replaced by a tablet, then you don't do much real work with it.
For people who write code, maybe. I can see a tablet being a perfectly suitable work machine for a manager whose job consists of going to meetings, reading documents, making decisions, and sending and receiving emails. That description fits plenty of people.
I hate to be yet another voice claiming great iPad battery life against your direct experience, but. . . seriously, did you have a defective unit or something? In my experience a few hours of reading won't even drop my battery gauge by more than a few percent. Hell a few hours of video isn't even a problem.
The only problem I ever have with battery life is when I want to completely drain it, as they say one should occasionally do. I think the damn thing harvests power from ambient radio waves.
Where will it get the anti-mice it needs to attain that level of efficiency?
who here has gotten a tetanus vaccine? It's every ten years...I know I've missed at least one, possible two.)
How did you manage that? Every time I go to a clinic for anything, they ask me when my last tetanus booster was, and if I can't tell them exactly how many years it has been, they assume I'm due and give me one. I'm 33 and I've had the booster at least 8 times.
I think you are wrong that that would resolve the issue.
Apple isn't forcing everyone with a web page to give up 30% for any purchase from an iPad
No, not for any purchase from an iPad. Obviously. If I use Safari to order a hard drive from newgg, Apple doesn't give a shit.
But as I understand it, their policy IS violated whenever an iOS app gets paid content by means other than an in-app purchase. The button that opens Amazon's web store in Safari is not what they have a problem with per se, but the fact that the app is used exclusively to download and view paid content that you can't buy through the app store.
Even if you buy the ebook by visiting the website from your computer, the kindle app, when opened, contacts Amazon's servers and checks if there is any newly purchased content for it to download. By the almighty law of King Steve, that's a problem.
Is the world going to end? No. And in all likelyhood I expect Apple will back off if the outcry is big enough. But if not, then I think it's very possible we end up with higher prices, or a Kindle app that only gets content by syncing through iTunes, which amounts to a crippled app in my book.