How would open access equate to some sort of closed access?
It doesn't. Actually, it's the opposite: Open access means that when there's a public debate about science (global climate change, evolution, etc.), ordinary people can actually access the scientific papers, rather than relying on third parties to tell them what the science says.
Do they even have any security-minded people working at this company? Publishing a picture of a real key is an understandable mistake, but why does the same key open every single voting machine?
According to Wikipedia (obviously, THE indisputable authority on everything), it's 0.9 cm. If you have a reference for your 0.5 cm figure, could you update the Wikipedia page?
Think of betting. The horse wins : was the probability 1 - NO!!!!
The probability of what? You have again missed my entire point. If the only time you're going to ask that question is when the horse wins, then the probability of the horse winning whenever you ask the question is indeed 1.
No kidding! Stuff like GnomeVFS (and whatever the KDE equivalent is) is nice if all your apps are written using it, but they never are, and so it just serves to ruin the overall consistency of the system.
If you need special filesystems, FUSE (or something like it) is probably less leaky abstraction.
Apple could have not released it for Tiger at all. Like DirectX 10 for Windows XP (which apparently won't be happening).
While I'm not a huge fan of proprietary software, I don't find it all that unreasonable that a company that sells a proprietary operating system expects you to pay for extra OS features. Heck, even with free software, you sometimes have to pay someone to backport the features you need.
Well, if there weren't life we wouldn't be asking.
The "probability of life" question really only makes sense when you're talking about the probability of life occurring elsewhere. You can't take everything that has ever happened that had less than a 50% chance of happening and say "wow, look how unlikely that is that all those things happened!"
Actually no. It's you who doesn't know what your talking about. This e-mail isn't from a peer reviewed Science Journal.
... which is why I said to go read the widely-cited paper by Antoine Joux---published in Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2004---"Multicollisions in Iterated Hash Functions. Application to Cascaded Constructions". The email is just a summary for others who aren't interested enough to pay $95 for the proceedings of CRYPTO 2004.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't. Actually, it's the opposite: Open access means that when there's a public debate about science (global climate change, evolution, etc.), ordinary people can actually access the scientific papers, rather than relying on third parties to tell them what the science says.
That's not grammatically correct.
In the election before the last one, voting irregularities were discovered. In the last election, Diebold fixed that.
Shhh! Don't tell them that!
-- Canada
But not in the allotted time, which is probably another reason why the newer (faster) calculators aren't allowed.
Do they even have any security-minded people working at this company? Publishing a picture of a real key is an understandable mistake, but why does the same key open every single voting machine?
... the one thing you can't do is write useful scripts with this, i.e. The Main Reason Why We Use Command-Line Interfaces In The First Place?
Canada is a lot more than two nations.
Heh. I have observed it. ;-P
Your post advocates a (x) legislative ...
According to Wikipedia (obviously, THE indisputable authority on everything), it's 0.9 cm. If you have a reference for your 0.5 cm figure, could you update the Wikipedia page?
Ah, but this is quantum physics. The ordinary rules do not apply! ;)
Sarcasm ----> *whoosh*
O <--- You
|
--|--
|
/ \
... how innovative of them!
your orginal statement was :
What is that probability of life, given that we're asking? - obviously 1
Yes, and I stand by that statement. It is a corollary of "I think, therefore I am". You have said nothing that refutes this.
Sorry, buddy, but at this point I can see that I must withdraw from further communication with you.Be my guest.
220 mail04.microsoft.com Microsoft ESMTP MAIL Service ready at Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:13:37 -0800
The probability of what? You have again missed my entire point. If the only time you're going to ask that question is when the horse wins, then the probability of the horse winning whenever you ask the question is indeed 1.
Where does Amiga fit in there, now that it's relevant again?
But virus-infected software is not. Maybe that's what this number is referring to.
What is that probability of life, given that we're asking?
The answer is obviously 1.
You wrote: But that doesn't make it a probablity of 1.Either you misread what I wrote, you didn't read it at all, or you desperately need a lesson in conditional probability.
No kidding! Stuff like GnomeVFS (and whatever the KDE equivalent is) is nice if all your apps are written using it, but they never are, and so it just serves to ruin the overall consistency of the system.
If you need special filesystems, FUSE (or something like it) is probably less leaky abstraction.
Bite my shiny metal ass!
Apple could have not released it for Tiger at all. Like DirectX 10 for Windows XP (which apparently won't be happening).
While I'm not a huge fan of proprietary software, I don't find it all that unreasonable that a company that sells a proprietary operating system expects you to pay for extra OS features. Heck, even with free software, you sometimes have to pay someone to backport the features you need.
Well, if there weren't life we wouldn't be asking.
The "probability of life" question really only makes sense when you're talking about the probability of life occurring elsewhere. You can't take everything that has ever happened that had less than a 50% chance of happening and say "wow, look how unlikely that is that all those things happened!"
... which is why I said to go read the widely-cited paper by Antoine Joux---published in Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Advances in Cryptology - CRYPTO 2004---"Multicollisions in Iterated Hash Functions. Application to Cascaded Constructions". The email is just a summary for others who aren't interested enough to pay $95 for the proceedings of CRYPTO 2004.