We're way past my personal knowledge, but what I was thinking was that the probablistic combinations of two algorithms outweigh (in terms of probability of a collision) the likely hood of a single algo.
IE if you have some hashing function with a 1/2^5 chance of a collisions, using that in conjuntion with another hashing function with say 1/2^3 requires that both unlikely probabilities occur, resulting in 1/2^8, where a "stronger" hashing function might only have 1/2^6 (technically stronger than either one of them, but still not as strong as both)
I'd really love some correction on the logic above though, I am by no means well studied in probability or hashing functions, despite some effort, and would really appreciate any corrections.
I think in light of the Snowden revelations, everyone in the U.S. would be right to be suspicious of such an offering. Except of course those that have nothing to hide. Of course, if you're not using the nation's free wifi, then you're clearly up to no good and deserve a warrant for suspicious behaviour ;)
At this point, everyone's threat model should include a well funded government. Of course, like everything else, you have to weigh convenience against the cost of security. At some point you have to throw your hands up in the air and say "whatever!" if they want to find something against me, they will surely find it. I think it was Cardinal Richeleu who was supposed to have said "Find me 6 lines by the most honest man and I will find in them something to have him hanged." [I paraphrase]
The point is that moving away from free government provided WIFI does nothing to prevent the US government from getting anything they want, and it is dangerous and irresponsible to suggest otherwise. We know this because the US doesn't have government provided WIFI and they have an estimated 3 to 12 exabytes of planned storage at the Utah Data Center. (Where 5 exabytes would be "all the words ever spoken by humans").
it's the same in many states in the US... for example, if you are going to shoot someone, make sure that you kill them, if you don't want to go to jail...
Is there really a situation in which the punishment for killing is lighter than for wounding, especially with a weapon/vehicle?? Or are you speaking less formally: that you might never get caught for the kill if there's nobody to turn you in?
> Is there really a situation in which the punishment for killing is lighter than for wounding, especially with a weapon/vehicle?
Yes.
If someone breaks into your home, in most states self defense would be a slam-dunk defense against a murder charge. Even if acquited of murder, the burglar's family can sue you for wrongful death - the evidentiary bar for wrongful death is much lower than for murder.
It's entirely possible to be acquited of murder, but convicted in civil court and ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to a burglar's family.
Not to mention the fact that in a criminal trial, if the guy is dead he doesn't testify against you.
In situations in which it is legal for you to employ deadly force, you won't be convicted of any criminal statute if you apply that force or any lesser force. That is, if you have an adequate reason to shoot to kill, a application of force which results in a wound is treated equally with one which results in death. The reverse, obviously, is not true.
In all cases, you may be sued civilly for a wrongful death, battery, or any number of other things. And lots of parties can bring the suit: the individual himself, various members of his family, your homeowners association, etc. N is fairly big, removing one of the N probably is not meaningful. Do these sort of civil suits tend to pay more for woundings than deaths? I have no data on this but would be surprised if that were the case.
I expect the only thing the OP meant is that slain person cannot testify the killer. This is self-evident but not really helpful. How is it different than "if you're going to rob someone, you should also kill them". I suppose this might be good practical, tactical advice for criminals but it isn't advancing the discussion here.
> If someone breaks into your home, in most states self defense would be a slam-dunk defense against a murder charge. Even if acquited of murder, the burglar's family can sue you for wrongful death - the evidentiary bar for wrongful death is much lower than for murder.
In some states you will be immune from civil action if you win your criminal case on self defense. Florida, for example [1].
If no criminal case is brought in Florida, and you are sued civilly and prove self defense in the civil trial, the court is required to award you attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and expenses incurred for your defense.
one example that come to mind is Trayvon Martin's case [1] ... since he died, he could not say that the shooter was not acting in self defense... no jail time for the shooter.
I agree that lottery is bad for society but the only reason that the government is doing it, I think, is because it was worst when organized crime had control over it.
But I do think that the government should reinvest all profits in education (not necessarily gambling related), gambling therapy, etc...
The problem with that, is they wind up cutting education funding from other sources in favor of lottery funding. That said, funding isn't the biggest problem in education. The bigger issues are teacher pay vs. other costs don't encourage those who would be better teachers.
Just because someone dreams of working with kids, or being a vet doesn't mean they have the natural skills needed to do so, or that the training they receive is appropriate for the task. Too much of this is driven by emotions over statistics and policies backed by those emotionally/politically driven ties.
The U.S. already spends more per student than most other countries do, and we're behind many of them. This isn't a money problem it's a political one. From the publishing companies to churches, the teacher's unions and everyone opposed and in between. There is far too much politics in and out of the classroom. Kids need to learn that life isn't fair, not everyone wins, and that sometimes you will lose. That doesn't mean you give up and stop trying.
While having organized crime run lotteries is certainly bad, some of the examples of predatory advertising mentioned in the article are absolutely despicable and unworthy of a government.
If the government runs lotteries, it should only if they have ascertained that a total ban would send lottery players into the arms of organized crime, and government should only run those lotteries with the health of these addicts in mind, and not with any kind of profit motive.
Advertising should be of the form: "If you absolutely have to play a lottery, here's how to do it, but be aware that you will lose money and very likely not win anything", and certainly not of the form: "This could be your ticket out of this mess!"
