Jesus said: If they say to you: Whence have you come?, say to them: We have come from the light, the place where the light came into being of itself. It [established itself], and it revealed itself in their image. If they say to you: Who are you?, say: We are his sons, and we are the elect of the living Father. If they ask you: What is the sign of your Father in you?, say to them: It is movement and rest.

--Thomas

Sometimes, this is almost too easy.

The reason is because there's a straw-man of what I said?

...how it works out depends on the details of the key...

Indeed. And note I said the details should be -arbitrary-, for instance, "Type a passphrase of arbitrary length" for the encryptor. This is not analogous to the "XOR with the last byte also" of the question presented. At minimum one would have to determine the -length- of the passphrase to know when the next block begins. I suggest this is a much greater challenge than the suggested implementation you've linked, and further that the attacks on the Vigenere cipher are not applicable, as that cipher creates repeating sequences in the ciphertext, whereas a chained XOR would not.

Agreed, however, that using the same passphrase across multiple files would be potentially insecure. The fix to remedy that is trivially obvious, though...

You'll need to elaborate on that. How are you going to determine any plaintext at all in the file (presuming it even is text)? There are no repeating sequences of bytes you could mount a statistical attack on, the very purpose of "chaining" the XOR operations.

If it's that easy, you should be able to pseudocode the crack, here and now.

Chained-XOR (say, XOR-ing with the key byte sequence -and- the preceding file bytes in the last XOR-ing round, with an arbitrary key length) is actually quite secure.

IIRC, it is one of the techniques that automatically qualified an algorithm as an unexportable "munition".

For a small monthly fee, you can retrieve your company e-mails directly from the NSA. Although this will not help with the fact that your "politically connected" competitor will soon inevitably put you out of business due to having all your trade secrets, it does simplify remembering the e-mail address of that guy you think might want to buy the office furniture.

Yes, I know more than you about this, and every related subject. You need to take your poseur ego panhandling elsewhere. You have generated nothing but useless conceptual junk with your "meta-view" method, and neither have nor can present any concerted view with actual useful content. "Not that" is not a position, it is not an accomplishment, it is literally nothing--for another basic logical fallacy among the many you need to have a clue about to achieve the basic abilities at thinking you currently lack, that one's a Reification Fallacy.

If you are wrong, you are wrong, if you are right, you have said nothing about anything with any validity. It's a vacuum of capability on your part you've somehow managed to impress unquestioning others with enough to satisfy your goalless ego-stroking--however, I am not among them.

More thinking, less trolling, if you are capable of it. You're stuck like a broken parrot on the notion of "political manipulation" (and now, that you have been shown to have no basis for your claim, you just desperately rhetorically amplify it with equally-unbacked "violence"), when there is simply no basis for it being relevant, when it could be actually relevant to your argument, before 200 AD.

I don't rely on others. Stop with this ludicrous "all positions are somebody's, therefore whenever I feel like it, I refer to that other somebody and claim my opposition's position is wrong because it's also somebody else's" nonsense. It's childish, and irrational. The specific reason it is formally, provably irrational I have already given you--it is formally a Genetic Fallacy.

I listened, considered, investigated, and now I -know- as fact. I know, you do not, and unfortunately I can't help you with that, because you are willfully refusing to think rationally, and will therefore fail on this and any other philosophical question.

So, still no plausible combination of proposed scriptural change and actual political advantage that would be offered by it. You could have at least parroted some Dan Brown, even if that would put us at laughable levels of historical scholarship.

The rest of your post is all over the map, lots of insults and very little useful content, but to answer what you appear to be staking out as your main relevant counterpoint, on "clean foods"...

Here's a straightforward rationale found with a simple google search, linked mainly for the verse citations. As we see, the number of verses supporting that there was an actual rescoping of expectations corresponding to a direct spiritual rationale, is not singular, but has multiple mutually-reinforcing verses within scripture.

http://www.gotquestions.org/foods.html

On your last part on "finding truth", there is no necessary contradiction between how you came across a truth, and whether it is truth. If you want the formal name of the fallacy of this thinking, it is a Genetic Fallacy. Overall, you simply have rejected a-priori a particular source for your personal reasons, and will fog over resolving questions for yourself with whatever degree of refusal to do the work of discerning what's true (among which are the very basic, stated tools of evaluating internal logical consistency) that is necessary.

The Hour of Code, dedicated to minimizing the tech giants' cost per Hour of Code.

I was just scrolling by, minding my own business; when I saw your little faux passe about the truth in the Bible not changing over time.

You actually didn't address his statement at all. While it's fun to talk about how many books there were, and how many changes there may have been, it actually doesn't make any more difference to the truth of the content than book editions today, or how many may be rejected by a publisher covering the same topic. Far from "whimsical", the criteria, determined at absolute minimum, by people deeply engaged in the topic at the time, was largely consistency with the baseline, most-trusted documents. If the writing lacks consistency with those, or even internally with itself, by any criteria it should be rejected--and that is precisely the basis by which they were. Christians tend to believe that the bible accurately transmits the essential truths of the religion due to the historical guidance of God, but your argument doesn't even rise to being a valid criticism of, say, the most mundane topics such as the creation and selections of a textbook on physics.

And, the notion that the essential truths to be conveyed was selected based on political considerations is highly implausible, as the core was selected by Irenaeus before 200 AD, well before the Catholic Church had notable political power to "protect" by your fanciful notion of "political" motivations. Since you didn't present even the barest notion of some political gain to be had even theoretically, by means of some relevant theological conclusion that could be "manipulated", how about you make something up now, to fill in your argument that much, at least?

If you can name an essential difference in actual doctrine (analogous to presuming wildly varying accepted understandings of physics because of physics books typos or consolidations) that one would derive differently based on the history of the documents, that is, the "truths" that are proposed to be there, to make your argument relevant, then do so and we'll take it from there.

God in the form sold by the 3 majors doesn't exist, it is a logical fallacy.

This in itself is sufficient to demonstrate you have no idea what a logical fallacy is, or how logic is applied. Which fallacy? The real ones are actually formalized and enumerated. Theism is not among them.

I actually belong to a "literal" militia, recognized by the state, and while I don't own a musket I do own the modern equivalent.

This is relevant only insofar as you are agreeing with me. The founding fathers certainly didn't have the precise form of your "militia" in mind when the principle was drafted, yet, I presume you feel it applies. It is also quite-unproblematically used to apply to individuals "bearing arms" in general, though that lacks the precise correspondence to the original text that you claim would make it not "valid".

Your "faith" is my joke, that you deign to scold me is evidence enough of your unrelenting arrogance, anyone of merit would have skimmed past my post, but you took it personally.

Yawn. You might be able to troll me with that if I didn't know otherwise as fact. We'll take up the discussion to elaborate on the question at a much-later date, though. Your participation non-optional.

Neither the U.S. nor Russia has been able to defeat a bunch of desert-dwellers with rifles during either country's sustained military campaigns.

Such asymmetric warfare would the the last thing to overcome, waged likely better by standard U.S. citizens than the Taliban, -if- they survived all the ICBM's, sub-launched missiles, stealth and conventional bombers, Army, and Marines--to name a few.

Engaging in such a thing would only be a catastrophically foolish thing for any country to attempt, and they know it. "Parity" is simply an ongoing game to benefit the military-industrial complex and the perceived "prestige" of the leadership, on the backs of the citizens. The U.S. could easily freeze at 1950 levels, and we'd remain quite certainly unattacked--freeing up tremendous resources where we are -actually- at threat of losing to China and Russia, economically.

... in order to be valid it must remain unchanged.

No, it doesn't. It shares the same process of contextual application as... most every domain of human activity. Is the U.S. Constitution "valid"? Does the fact we now aren't talking about literal militias and muskets in applying it, invalidate the principles?

Feel free to continue making up universally logically-impossible criteria and false definitions, such as the meaning of "faith", and wishfully projecting that onto religious practice, though. Enjoy. We'll just continue on with what it actually is, and what we actually do.

I'll try to make appropriate assumptions about your views and premises to address your questions in a way you'll find clearer.

What do you mean by 'proposing causal exclusivity to "evolutionary" processes'?

By "causal exclusivity" I mean that the proposed effect (in this case, human existence in our current form) would be fully explained by the proposed cause. Usually, the reason this distinction needs to be made is because an argument that is being made is really a "false dichotomy" fallacy, like this:

Statement asked:
"Do you accept 'evolution'?"

Implied meaning:
"Do you think we have our current biological form and attributes 100% because of (naturalistic) evolution, or 0% because of evolution?"

My answer is "neither". The question is being framed such that no answer can be correct.

Very few people (including theists) would say "0%", particularly because simple hybridization is itself a form of evolution, and hybridization is uncontroversial both in terms of direct testable experience, and, for that matter, is directly described and supported in scripture.

Considerably more would say "100%", or rather, would not actually directly claim that, but rather will avoid analysis by simply using the term "evolution" to -imply- that, and thereby avoid further questions without having to discuss the specifics. Generally, the people strongly advocating this "implying 100%" position are atheists, who feel they need to believe it's 100% attributable to evolution because their personal choice as to philosophical stance requires that they believe that. It is, however, a wholly untestable, thus unscientific, claim, as stated. You simply have no way to test that at one or more points in history, say, extraterrestrial genetic engineers "helped" biological development by directly engineering some particularly complex biological attributes that, proposably, could not have occurred given the mechanisms of random mutations and natural selection alone--as just one of many possible scenarios where "something else" is a factor.

-If- such a thing occurred, would we then say evolutionary processes had nothing to do with why animal X had the physical attribute Y? No. Would we then say that evolutionary processes would -fully explain- all the biological features we see? Again, no.

Therefore, we have to be very attentive when the word "evolution" is being used, because what is being implied by it is central to the discussion, and, quite frankly, using "evolution" to "officially" mean things that are testable, but then systematically -implying- it to mean things that are not testable, is extremely common in the arguments of atheism.

I'll amend and ask, "were genetic algorithms involved in producing that human"?

"Algorithms" are something that is designed. So, yes, if you're asking from my perspective, they were involved. However, you don't "get to" claim the same, if you are denying design is a necessary component to the explanation. Same basic thing as your "counterargument" that the universe itself is a computer. Computers are designed. So, ultimately, you are saying we aren't designed because we come from something designed. You are arguing for my position rather than yours, when it comes right down to it.

"I've seen code that was designed to use genetic algorithms. I've yet to see such code generate itself."

Because, that's the question at hand. The OP's argument is that he can write code that implements something broadly similar to evolution (though, for that matter, he could just randomly flip through the attributes and test for meeting the desired conditions and get there a lot faster, so it's unclear what this "proves"), and therefore, it is sufficient to explain... whatever it purports to explain. But, it doesn't, because -him designing the program to do that- is a necessary part of the explanation of how it happened. The design requirement doesn't go away simply by not mentioning it in one's argument. So, likewise, to summarize my position, I agree with Designed Evolution, sometimes referred to as Guided or Theistic Evolution.

Tell me, what type of algorithm produced that human?

I'm glad you used a question rather than a statement, because if you had stated what you're trying to imply, you'd be making a directly untestable and unscientific claim.

I'd prefer to keep the discussion on science, and proposing causal exclusivity to "evolutionary" processes is not science, it's a hopeful non-sequitur and inappropriate generalization. "Evolution occurs", is science. "Only evolution occurs", is not. The fact you only care about the second form, for personal reasons, has nothing to do with science or a scientific usage of "evolution" or "genetic".