Thanks, but I know what SHA-2 is. I also know that there was so much concern that SHA-2 would be broken that SHA-3 was created. My joke was that the NSA might have broken SHA-2 (they haven't) and that's why they were encouraging us to use it.
Recently, cryptanalysts have found collisions on the MD4, MD5, and SHA– 0 algorithms; moreover, a method for finding SHA–1 collisions with less than the expected amount of work has been published, although at this time SHA– 1 collisions have not yet been demonstrated. Although there is no specific reason to believe that a practical attack on any of the SHA–2 family of hash functions is imminent, a successful collision attack on an algorithm in the SHA–2 family could have catastrophic effects for digital signatures. NIST has decided that it is prudent to develop a new hash algorithm to augment and revise FIPS 180–2. The new hash algorithm will be referred to as ‘‘SHA–3’’
This was published in 2007. My joke was about the general uneasiness in the community about SHA-2, even if it hasn't been broken yet. Unfortunately, it seems that the members of \. who responded to me were too thick to understand this. You could have just pointed out that SHA-2 hasn't been broken yet. Instead you evinced your lack of ability to make clever insults.
...you dolt...You're clearly an ignorant fuck.
If you use the word "dolt" in conversation in a non-facetious manner it means that you're either a horribly self-conscious member of the middle class who is afraid of appearing "unprofessional", or a dummkopf who hasn't learned that using "dolt" is a shibboleth of immaturity. If you're going to call someone a motherfucker, as any other confident fellow with an iota of social intelligence would, please do it at the outset. Your prose will have a more even tone and you won't be downmodded for flaimbaiting.
For password storage and protection, the general best practice is to use an algorithm designed for password protection, the top options being bcrypt, scrypt, PBKDF2, or SHA-2.
SHA-2? Was that sentence edited by an NSA intern?
Some mathematicians, however, argue that maths aptitude is not born so much as made.
What about Srinivasa Ramanujan?
Story title should be:
We don't think that Apple is the most innovative innovater in the innovative history of innovating innovaters (which is in itself an innovation).
and the summary should be:
Boy, have we made sure to make this story fanboy/troll bait!
They probably noticed that scientists can do things like prove that Russian elections are rigged.
Of course, they can do whatever they want. It's not like anybody's going to read their book.
The OED is widely considered to the finest and most authoritative dictionary of the English language. Every serious English language scholar has access to and consults the OED.
That's not the OED definition. This is the OED definition:
1. a. A book which explains or translates, usually in alphabetical order, the words of a language or languages (or of a particular category of vocabulary)
"Particular category of vocabulary" is understood to include phrases.
A phrase doesn't deserve its own entry
So you would exclude "fait accompli" and "juste milieu" from the dictionary?
You go from on the order of 170,000 words to practically damn uncountable
Wikipedia says that the OED has about 750,000 entries.
They should add
Twerk'); DROP TABLE Verbs; --
Read Brett Victor's A Brief Rant on the Future of Interactive Design if you want to understand why haptic feedback designs are superior.
This gem was written about Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science":
Why you are reading this review
I can only imagine how fortunate you must feel to be reading my review. This review is the product of my lifetime of experience in meeting important people and thinking deep thoughts. This is a new kind of review, and will no doubt influence the way you
think about the world around you and the way you think of yourself.
Bigger than infinity
Although my review deserves thousands of pages to articulate, I am limiting many of my deeper thoughts to only single characters. I encourage readers of my review to dedicate the many years required to fully absorb the significance of what I am writing here. Fortunately, we live in exactly the time when my review can be widely disseminated by "internet" technology and stored on "digital media", allowing current and future scholars to delve more deeply into my original and insightful use of commas, numbers, and letters.
My place in history
My review allows, for the first time, a complete and total understanding not only of this but *every single*
book ever written. I call this "the principle of book equivalence." Future generations will decide the relative merits of this review compared with, for example, the works of Shakespeare. This effort will open new realms of scholarship.
I am the author of all things
It is staggering to contemplate that all the great works of literature can be derived from the letters I use in writing this review. I am pleased to have shared them with you, and hereby grant you the liberty to use up to twenty (20) of them consecutively without attribution. Any use of additional characters in print must acknowledge this review as source material since it contains, implicitly or explicitly, all future written documents.
This story was in the Washington Post back in April.
The term "weapon of mass destruction" has a legal definition, which you can find here. The definition of a "destructive device" is here, which I'll quote parts of.
Relevant part of 18 USC 2332a:
(2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; and
(3) the term “property” includes all real and personal property.
Relevant part of 18 USC 921
(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.
Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.
