The simplest answer to what spilled is "Everything" - nearly anything that human civilization has produced was present on the Japanese coast. Not even including industrial sites, you have pesticides, photographic developers, cleaning supplies, oil, medicines, antifreeze, fermenting garbage and excrement, etc etc... Have you seen video of the tsunami hitting a populated area? These aren't beach waves, it's more like a flash flood that buries the city under 30ft of water within minutes, then that water sucks everything back out to sea. Anything in that city is going out with the water, unless it's purpose-built to withstand a tsunami. You'd think that would be the case for chemical storage, but it looks like even the nuclear plant wasn't built for it.
I wish email would die, but only because it's a really shitty protocol by today's standards. If you've ever had to maintain a mail server with any amount of traffic through it, you know what I'm talking about. In addition to the spam and all the spam-related problems with blacklisting... the protocol is inherently unreliable in guaranteeing that a message gets delivered, in a timely manner, without it being intercepted, and that the sender is who he says he is.
There are an array of extensions to email that tackle these problems piecemeal, like PGP, SPF, and DKIM. The issue is that people don't use them properly, or at all. Improperly-configured SPF can actually cause messages that would otherwise send successfully to fail.
I think the solution to this would be for major email providers to agree on a comprehensive suite of extensions to use, which I'm sure someone will call "Email 2.0". Messages from domains/servers with the Email 2.0 protocols enabled will be marked as "Verified" or "Registered", clearly in the user's inbox.
Right now, there is nothing visible to the end-user to indicate whether a message has been sent securely or not. The end-user isn't aware that email is insecure or that there are solutions available. If big email providers and email clients (Outlook etc) add this indicator, the issue will become apparent. Once that happens the small-time mail server operators will begin looking at it as well. Once adoption hits a tipping point, you may even have end-users calling businesses up about "Hey, I received this email from you, but it's not verified? Is this really yours?" That will take care of the stragglers.
America's Army has actually changed quite a bit. The version you're describing is AA 1 or 2 which came out around 2003. It hasn't been supported for many years. AA3 did away with the mandatory training and classes, even for snipers and medics.
A few months ago they launched the latest game in the series, "America's Army: Proving Grounds", which has yet further changes. In-game, many people have commented on how AA is being turned into Call of Duty. The gameplay is now much more similar to CoD, they have even brought back jumping, which lets you bunnyhop to dodge bullets. None of the previous incarnations of AA allowed unrestricted jumping for this reason. There are many other changes too to make it more CoD-like, but they are difficult to verbalize - It's a free game, so grab it on Steam if you're curious.
One thing of note is that, as of last month's update, there are now essentially recruiting videos that play on the loading screens.
The concept of dirtweed or ditchweed is well-known to US stoners as well - if you find it growing naturally there is a good chance it's a hemp strain, not suitable for smoking. It's not that the these plants don't contain any THC, it's that they don't contain appreciable THC in doses large enough to get high. It's a minor distinction, and probably good not to mention it lest the government try to clamp down on supercapacitor research. But, I would expect the scientist in the article to be more precise.
Shamelessly copying another post to expand on how aircraft and road car designs are difficult to reconcile:
"A good car has down force and sticks to the road. A good plane does the opposite. I was at a flight museum that had a flying car on display and it was described as something like a "Mediocre car, and mediocre plane" Not that it's impossible, but the most basic attributes of a plane and car are contradictory."
IANAPilot but I did complete most of the requirements for a single-engine license (many hours in the air as co-pilot). Running out of fuel is actually one of the best "failure modes" you can hope to happen in an aircraft. So are other engine-related problems. If your engine stops, the plane doesn't fall down, it becomes a (rather poor) glider. You do need to keep steadily descending so you don't go into an aerodynamic stall which will drop the plane - but if there is a field or other area nearby suitable to land, you can certainly attempt a landing.
The failures you really don't want to have are things like the wings or tail coming off, or losing control of the alerons - that will drop you like a rock.
A lot of the flying car prototypes that have been produced, especially in the era when the term was most relevant, were quite literally "flying cars" or "cars that fly", or whichever other way you prefer to phrase it. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Besides the technical challenges of making a vehicle that is suitable for both everyday road use and use in the air - some of which are simply inherent to the concept (like the compromise between building a strong/safe car and a light aircraft, and aerodynamics) - there are also the human problems of having the average person flying around populated areas daily while applying makeup, texting, etc. To even attempt having safe skies we'd have to put all the population through pilot school which requires hundreds of hours of flight with an instructor (expensive), in addition to the classes which deal with concepts like drag, lift, stall speed, bank angles, fuel/air mixture... not hard stuff, but a significant portion of the population wouldn't get it. Then, when the pilots get up there, they won't be flying in the mostly-empty skies we currently have. They'll be experiencing airborne rush hour as 3 million people take off and go to work. But before we get to that point, every home and business will need to find space to build a runway and possibly a hangar. Helipads would be somewhat easier to build everywhere, but you have already said helicopters need not apply.
Air transport for daily, local use is impractical, point blank. It's useful for longer and more infrequent trips. For even longer and even more infrequent trips, there's space travel. For the most local and shortest trips (think bathroom, fridge) the preferred method will always be walking. The type of transportation must be tailored to the needs. People do not need to fly regularly.
Whatever we find to replace the automobile (if anything) won't be along the lines of flying cars. More likely is an automated system of personal transporters, something like today's self-driving cars coupled with enhanced roads that provide active laser or radio "guideposts" so the road is more like a set of tracks than a free-for-all where cars have free motion. Or, we could go to real tracks and have everyone ride mass transit. Both of these options are much safer than flying-cars. Which one actually happens depends on what society will more readily adapt to. "None of the above" is also a very likely option - if we can get cars off of oil before it busts, I could easily see electric cars or similar being the norm for the next few centuries.
I knew two different people who used a cell network hot spot as their sole home internet access. I'm not sure what compels people to do that. These were type of people who already have $160/mo phone plans, so I imagine it's a misguided attempt to save money by cutting the separate "Internet bill" and putting everything on the phone bill instead.
Not to mention NASA has been flying manned missions on a regular, consistent basis for about 55 years now. Three failures over 5 decades isn't bad, considering this is literally "rocket science" and "a moonshot", which had never been done before. These phrases have entered public consciousness as synonyms for difficulty for good reason.
Ah, the required high school GPA field. That one particularly bothers me because my school (a public school in the US) did not assign GPAs to students. Our individual assignments were graded on a GPA-like scale from 0 to 4, but courses were graded pass/fail/honors, and no GPAs were ever calculated.
5-10 minutes is what it should be like - you haven't run across the hour-long applications with the 100-question personality tests? I've spent over an hour on an application more than once, too. One that I remember being particularly bad had the 100-question personality test, and made you take the same test for each position you were applying to. Being that I checked off two positions, I had to do the test twice over. I'm just glad the results saved and submitted properly. It's common enough for these web apps to simply crap out and trash your entire application.
When's the last time you looked for a job, and what sort of job was it? As little as 6 or 8 years ago, a lot of employers still used paper applications, or would accept a resume by email if you wanted to do it electronically. Even the ones that already had online applications have added all kinds of "assessments" and junk to the application.
IME it seems more common for entry-level or sales jobs to have these sorts of things added - I suppose that's because those employers are looking to throw out 90% of the applications anyway. If you have yet to experience the application from hell, try applying for some positions with retailers in your area. Before you hit the fifth application, I guarantee you will find one that fits the description. The problem is definitely not exclusive to low-pay jobs, but that's where you can spot it with certainty.
Does anyone know what benefit is actually provided by using Linux? This is precisely the type of embedded system with life-or-death consequences where I'd expect to see the entire thing done in heavily-audited assembly, or something close to it, interfacing directly with the hardware, with no OS to get in the way.
Certainly I'd trust it more than a Windows CE-based weapon, and I suppose if you want to reduce your attack surface, open source is the way to go - you can cut out the components that aren't needed. But, even still - I see little reason for an operating system to be there, except for convenient/cheap/fast development.
Perhaps that is the end goal of the "human experiment" - someone's trying to see how long it takes for a universe to evolve living beings, and for those beings to figure out the mechanics of their own universe. (Worshiping the creator is optional, but it probably gives him a giggle.)
This morning, I was reading about quantum phenomena and how some string theories posit that the length of a string is approximately the Planck length. Strings being the basic quantum unit, nothing can be measured to be smaller than 1 Planck length or measured with more precision than 1 Planck length. What you end up with then, is a universe where the spatial dimensions are a grid, that cannot be traversed continuously, but only in Planck-length increments. In other words - it is essentially digital. Like pixels on a display, where the pixels are much smaller than an atom. My understanding of string and quantum theory (admittedly far from complete) is that all aspects of the universe could be quantized, and thus simulated digitally in a computer.
If anyone can clarify/elaborate/refute, please do.
If you can't see the benefit of sensible version number system, I must infer you haven't done any development or serious IT work. Although it shouldn't be very hard to see the benefits as a "power user" either, which is sort of my minimum expectation for Slashdot.
Not really - The "algorithm" the grandparent has come up with can be written out as "The vote will be to reverse the ruling". Sure, you will get approximately 73% accuracy, assuming the distribution of the decisions remains the same. But it has zero utility as a predictive algorithm. Presumably, the algorithm that has been developed in TFA can predict both rulings to uphold and rulings to reverse with 70% accuracy. That's infinitely more useful than an algorithm that predicts rulings to reverse with 100% accuracy and rulings to uphold with 0% accuracy, which is what the GP poster did.
Perhaps it's time for a new bill of rights for the new millennium. The ability to amend the constitution was implemented for situations just like this. With all the technological advancements of the past decades, natural rights are now being infringed in ways that weren't possible in 1780. Some of the newer developments like omniscient surveillance would have been borderline unimaginable.
Then, take a look at how often the constitution has been actually amended. We have close to 30 amendments, but how many have been added during the past 50 years of technological advance? Zero, if I'm not mistaken. Even in the past 100 years, there have only been three or four amendments. Two of those were for the sideshow of Prohibition.
Unfortunately, what I think this indicates is that the government stopped looking out for us a long time ago. In that same 50 or 100 year period, how many laws were passed to protect corporate interests? A lot of the stuff being done today is already in violation of the constitution, so it seems to mean about as much as a square of Cottonelle TP to those in government. So I think the first step would be to make the government bound by the constitution again, then expand our rights under the law as needed for protection in the post-Internet world.
The picture is copied to at least a couple places locally when viewing the photo - the pixels on the monitor, and as bits in RAM. It's likely the image also gets copied into semi-permanent memory, either as browser cache, or the OS' paging file. Even if all these traces are gone by the time the trial comes, you could use the server's access logs as evidence the crime did occur.
It's obvious that someone checks it at some point, at least by the time it gets to court. "Yes, your honor, the defendant had child pronography in his email account. The images? Well, we have those, but nobody's actually looked at them. Not the prosecution, nor the defense. No, your honor, you can't see them either. In fact let's just proceed here without examining any evidence..."
A better question is, who looks at the pictures and at which points in the process? My guess is that Google stays as hands-off as possible while complying with the law and whatever the officials ask them to do. It probably goes something like:
(1) Google's automated scanning matches your email attachment to the hash of child pron,
(2) Google notifies law enforcement and/or relevant government agencies,
(3) Law enforcement obtains the warrant,
(4) Law enforcement notifies Google of the warrant and gets access to the email account.
Once they have the warrant and access to the email account, their ass is covered legally, and they begin law enforcement work. The first thing is probably checking that the email account doesn't belong to a senator or financial CEO. After that, a law enforcement official working on the case is probably the first one to actually check that the picture is in fact pornography. If they examine the picture to find out it's a cat meme, not CP, the "case" as it were would stop there and you'd never even know it happened.
Hash collisions are certainly possible, but they are also exceedingly rare, so the amount of false positives will be little-to-nothing. Even if the hash matching gives a false positive, a human will review the photos before it's announced publicly and charges are filed.
I do want to be clear I'm not trying to defend the system. In this scenario you still end up with the government rummaging in your email account - that's ripe for abuse. Not to mention the CP law being enforced is dubious to start with. The point I'm trying to make is that the system, in absence of malice or gross incompetence, will not indict you because of a hash collision.
If I'm not mistaken, the reason for choosing the World Trade Center as a target for bombing in the '90s and planeing in 2001 was not just for the symbolic value of knocking down a sky scraper, but also because it housed a lot of corporate headquarters, especially finance-related.
The terrorists (the real ones) may be a few decades ahead of you with this idea.
Slashdot Mirror
The simplest answer to what spilled is "Everything" - nearly anything that human civilization has produced was present on the Japanese coast. Not even including industrial sites, you have pesticides, photographic developers, cleaning supplies, oil, medicines, antifreeze, fermenting garbage and excrement, etc etc... Have you seen video of the tsunami hitting a populated area? These aren't beach waves, it's more like a flash flood that buries the city under 30ft of water within minutes, then that water sucks everything back out to sea. Anything in that city is going out with the water, unless it's purpose-built to withstand a tsunami. You'd think that would be the case for chemical storage, but it looks like even the nuclear plant wasn't built for it.
I wish email would die, but only because it's a really shitty protocol by today's standards. If you've ever had to maintain a mail server with any amount of traffic through it, you know what I'm talking about. In addition to the spam and all the spam-related problems with blacklisting... the protocol is inherently unreliable in guaranteeing that a message gets delivered, in a timely manner, without it being intercepted, and that the sender is who he says he is.
There are an array of extensions to email that tackle these problems piecemeal, like PGP, SPF, and DKIM. The issue is that people don't use them properly, or at all. Improperly-configured SPF can actually cause messages that would otherwise send successfully to fail.
I think the solution to this would be for major email providers to agree on a comprehensive suite of extensions to use, which I'm sure someone will call "Email 2.0". Messages from domains/servers with the Email 2.0 protocols enabled will be marked as "Verified" or "Registered", clearly in the user's inbox.
Right now, there is nothing visible to the end-user to indicate whether a message has been sent securely or not. The end-user isn't aware that email is insecure or that there are solutions available. If big email providers and email clients (Outlook etc) add this indicator, the issue will become apparent. Once that happens the small-time mail server operators will begin looking at it as well. Once adoption hits a tipping point, you may even have end-users calling businesses up about "Hey, I received this email from you, but it's not verified? Is this really yours?" That will take care of the stragglers.
The software in question isn't forcing anyone to do anything, it's giving the option for people to get around a filter.
America's Army has actually changed quite a bit. The version you're describing is AA 1 or 2 which came out around 2003. It hasn't been supported for many years. AA3 did away with the mandatory training and classes, even for snipers and medics.
A few months ago they launched the latest game in the series, "America's Army: Proving Grounds", which has yet further changes. In-game, many people have commented on how AA is being turned into Call of Duty. The gameplay is now much more similar to CoD, they have even brought back jumping, which lets you bunnyhop to dodge bullets. None of the previous incarnations of AA allowed unrestricted jumping for this reason. There are many other changes too to make it more CoD-like, but they are difficult to verbalize - It's a free game, so grab it on Steam if you're curious.
One thing of note is that, as of last month's update, there are now essentially recruiting videos that play on the loading screens.
Very true - I would date the start of NASA's decline as the 1980s, if not earlier.
The concept of dirtweed or ditchweed is well-known to US stoners as well - if you find it growing naturally there is a good chance it's a hemp strain, not suitable for smoking. It's not that the these plants don't contain any THC, it's that they don't contain appreciable THC in doses large enough to get high. It's a minor distinction, and probably good not to mention it lest the government try to clamp down on supercapacitor research. But, I would expect the scientist in the article to be more precise.
The good part is, instead of throwing the stems out I can now recycle them!
Shamelessly copying another post to expand on how aircraft and road car designs are difficult to reconcile:
"A good car has down force and sticks to the road. A good plane does the opposite. I was at a flight museum that had a flying car on display and it was described as something like a "Mediocre car, and mediocre plane" Not that it's impossible, but the most basic attributes of a plane and car are contradictory."
IANAPilot but I did complete most of the requirements for a single-engine license (many hours in the air as co-pilot).
Running out of fuel is actually one of the best "failure modes" you can hope to happen in an aircraft. So are other engine-related problems. If your engine stops, the plane doesn't fall down, it becomes a (rather poor) glider. You do need to keep steadily descending so you don't go into an aerodynamic stall which will drop the plane - but if there is a field or other area nearby suitable to land, you can certainly attempt a landing.
The failures you really don't want to have are things like the wings or tail coming off, or losing control of the alerons - that will drop you like a rock.
A lot of the flying car prototypes that have been produced, especially in the era when the term was most relevant, were quite literally "flying cars" or "cars that fly", or whichever other way you prefer to phrase it. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Besides the technical challenges of making a vehicle that is suitable for both everyday road use and use in the air - some of which are simply inherent to the concept (like the compromise between building a strong/safe car and a light aircraft, and aerodynamics) - there are also the human problems of having the average person flying around populated areas daily while applying makeup, texting, etc. To even attempt having safe skies we'd have to put all the population through pilot school which requires hundreds of hours of flight with an instructor (expensive), in addition to the classes which deal with concepts like drag, lift, stall speed, bank angles, fuel/air mixture... not hard stuff, but a significant portion of the population wouldn't get it. Then, when the pilots get up there, they won't be flying in the mostly-empty skies we currently have. They'll be experiencing airborne rush hour as 3 million people take off and go to work. But before we get to that point, every home and business will need to find space to build a runway and possibly a hangar. Helipads would be somewhat easier to build everywhere, but you have already said helicopters need not apply.
Air transport for daily, local use is impractical, point blank. It's useful for longer and more infrequent trips. For even longer and even more infrequent trips, there's space travel. For the most local and shortest trips (think bathroom, fridge) the preferred method will always be walking. The type of transportation must be tailored to the needs. People do not need to fly regularly.
Whatever we find to replace the automobile (if anything) won't be along the lines of flying cars. More likely is an automated system of personal transporters, something like today's self-driving cars coupled with enhanced roads that provide active laser or radio "guideposts" so the road is more like a set of tracks than a free-for-all where cars have free motion. Or, we could go to real tracks and have everyone ride mass transit. Both of these options are much safer than flying-cars. Which one actually happens depends on what society will more readily adapt to. "None of the above" is also a very likely option - if we can get cars off of oil before it busts, I could easily see electric cars or similar being the norm for the next few centuries.
I knew two different people who used a cell network hot spot as their sole home internet access. I'm not sure what compels people to do that. These were type of people who already have $160/mo phone plans, so I imagine it's a misguided attempt to save money by cutting the separate "Internet bill" and putting everything on the phone bill instead.
Not to mention NASA has been flying manned missions on a regular, consistent basis for about 55 years now. Three failures over 5 decades isn't bad, considering this is literally "rocket science" and "a moonshot", which had never been done before. These phrases have entered public consciousness as synonyms for difficulty for good reason.
In this case, it sounds like they're right and relevant.
Ah, the required high school GPA field. That one particularly bothers me because my school (a public school in the US) did not assign GPAs to students. Our individual assignments were graded on a GPA-like scale from 0 to 4, but courses were graded pass/fail/honors, and no GPAs were ever calculated.
5-10 minutes is what it should be like - you haven't run across the hour-long applications with the 100-question personality tests? I've spent over an hour on an application more than once, too. One that I remember being particularly bad had the 100-question personality test, and made you take the same test for each position you were applying to. Being that I checked off two positions, I had to do the test twice over. I'm just glad the results saved and submitted properly. It's common enough for these web apps to simply crap out and trash your entire application.
When's the last time you looked for a job, and what sort of job was it? As little as 6 or 8 years ago, a lot of employers still used paper applications, or would accept a resume by email if you wanted to do it electronically. Even the ones that already had online applications have added all kinds of "assessments" and junk to the application.
IME it seems more common for entry-level or sales jobs to have these sorts of things added - I suppose that's because those employers are looking to throw out 90% of the applications anyway. If you have yet to experience the application from hell, try applying for some positions with retailers in your area. Before you hit the fifth application, I guarantee you will find one that fits the description. The problem is definitely not exclusive to low-pay jobs, but that's where you can spot it with certainty.
Wait, you don't do gaming or work in the summer? What the hell do you do?!
Does anyone know what benefit is actually provided by using Linux? This is precisely the type of embedded system with life-or-death consequences where I'd expect to see the entire thing done in heavily-audited assembly, or something close to it, interfacing directly with the hardware, with no OS to get in the way.
Certainly I'd trust it more than a Windows CE-based weapon, and I suppose if you want to reduce your attack surface, open source is the way to go - you can cut out the components that aren't needed. But, even still - I see little reason for an operating system to be there, except for convenient/cheap/fast development.
Perhaps that is the end goal of the "human experiment" - someone's trying to see how long it takes for a universe to evolve living beings, and for those beings to figure out the mechanics of their own universe. (Worshiping the creator is optional, but it probably gives him a giggle.)
This morning, I was reading about quantum phenomena and how some string theories posit that the length of a string is approximately the Planck length. Strings being the basic quantum unit, nothing can be measured to be smaller than 1 Planck length or measured with more precision than 1 Planck length. What you end up with then, is a universe where the spatial dimensions are a grid, that cannot be traversed continuously, but only in Planck-length increments. In other words - it is essentially digital. Like pixels on a display, where the pixels are much smaller than an atom. My understanding of string and quantum theory (admittedly far from complete) is that all aspects of the universe could be quantized, and thus simulated digitally in a computer.
If anyone can clarify/elaborate/refute, please do.
If you can't see the benefit of sensible version number system, I must infer you haven't done any development or serious IT work. Although it shouldn't be very hard to see the benefits as a "power user" either, which is sort of my minimum expectation for Slashdot.
'nougat said.
Not really - The "algorithm" the grandparent has come up with can be written out as "The vote will be to reverse the ruling". Sure, you will get approximately 73% accuracy, assuming the distribution of the decisions remains the same. But it has zero utility as a predictive algorithm. Presumably, the algorithm that has been developed in TFA can predict both rulings to uphold and rulings to reverse with 70% accuracy. That's infinitely more useful than an algorithm that predicts rulings to reverse with 100% accuracy and rulings to uphold with 0% accuracy, which is what the GP poster did.
It's similar to
Perhaps it's time for a new bill of rights for the new millennium. The ability to amend the constitution was implemented for situations just like this. With all the technological advancements of the past decades, natural rights are now being infringed in ways that weren't possible in 1780. Some of the newer developments like omniscient surveillance would have been borderline unimaginable.
Then, take a look at how often the constitution has been actually amended. We have close to 30 amendments, but how many have been added during the past 50 years of technological advance? Zero, if I'm not mistaken. Even in the past 100 years, there have only been three or four amendments. Two of those were for the sideshow of Prohibition.
Unfortunately, what I think this indicates is that the government stopped looking out for us a long time ago. In that same 50 or 100 year period, how many laws were passed to protect corporate interests? A lot of the stuff being done today is already in violation of the constitution, so it seems to mean about as much as a square of Cottonelle TP to those in government. So I think the first step would be to make the government bound by the constitution again, then expand our rights under the law as needed for protection in the post-Internet world.
The picture is copied to at least a couple places locally when viewing the photo - the pixels on the monitor, and as bits in RAM. It's likely the image also gets copied into semi-permanent memory, either as browser cache, or the OS' paging file. Even if all these traces are gone by the time the trial comes, you could use the server's access logs as evidence the crime did occur.
It's obvious that someone checks it at some point, at least by the time it gets to court. "Yes, your honor, the defendant had child pronography in his email account. The images? Well, we have those, but nobody's actually looked at them. Not the prosecution, nor the defense. No, your honor, you can't see them either. In fact let's just proceed here without examining any evidence..."
A better question is, who looks at the pictures and at which points in the process? My guess is that Google stays as hands-off as possible while complying with the law and whatever the officials ask them to do. It probably goes something like:
(1) Google's automated scanning matches your email attachment to the hash of child pron,
(2) Google notifies law enforcement and/or relevant government agencies,
(3) Law enforcement obtains the warrant,
(4) Law enforcement notifies Google of the warrant and gets access to the email account.
Once they have the warrant and access to the email account, their ass is covered legally, and they begin law enforcement work. The first thing is probably checking that the email account doesn't belong to a senator or financial CEO. After that, a law enforcement official working on the case is probably the first one to actually check that the picture is in fact pornography. If they examine the picture to find out it's a cat meme, not CP, the "case" as it were would stop there and you'd never even know it happened.
Hash collisions are certainly possible, but they are also exceedingly rare, so the amount of false positives will be little-to-nothing. Even if the hash matching gives a false positive, a human will review the photos before it's announced publicly and charges are filed.
I do want to be clear I'm not trying to defend the system. In this scenario you still end up with the government rummaging in your email account - that's ripe for abuse. Not to mention the CP law being enforced is dubious to start with. The point I'm trying to make is that the system, in absence of malice or gross incompetence, will not indict you because of a hash collision.
If I'm not mistaken, the reason for choosing the World Trade Center as a target for bombing in the '90s and planeing in 2001 was not just for the symbolic value of knocking down a sky scraper, but also because it housed a lot of corporate headquarters, especially finance-related.
The terrorists (the real ones) may be a few decades ahead of you with this idea.