One of the constraints for any interesting solution is that the AIs not prioritize beating the human player over the other AIs; and that the AIs are each playing to win themselves.

This is correct but also wrong.

For example, one thing the NSA can't do now is simply get a court to order the company to bend over, hand over the data, and then stick a gag order on it so the company isn't allowed to even resist.

By moving it outside the company, yes the NSA is now free to target them without restraint, but they are also free to talk about any attacks, and they are free to actively resist the NSA.

Also:

Not really.

Which they can get, from a secret court, that rubber stamps warrants. And they can also broadly interpret various legislation (patriot act, etc) to grant them all sorts of priviledges to collect data without a warrant...

And again, if they have a warrant, with a silence gag on it, you cannot resist. In any other country, the NSA can attack you all they like - but you can defend yourself. They don't get to just order you around.

That's fair, but its also slightly different from your original proposal as it now explicitly requires custom dedicated hardware. You originally just stipulated "hardware assist" and allowed for "trusted desktop" or other otherware (e.g. smartphone/tablet/etc..)

Its not a practical solution if it doesn't actually exist.

Although there might be a market for a such a device.

It also still requires you need to memorize a password (even an easy one) for each situation. I have well over 100 passwords; and could not remember them all even if they were "easy" -- some I don't use for over a year at a time, unless I relied on a system -- and relying on a system breaks down as soon a site is compromised as I would then need to come up with a new password that deviates from the "system".

I would suggest that perhaps a combination of the two is the holy-grail. Password safe-like functionality for the majority of relatively unimportant passwords, and then some dedicated hardware for a smaller subset of important passwords.

I read your link.

At which point using a password safe(s) on a trusted device is basically the same thing. Except more convenient. Since you can have as many safes as you want, with an arbitrary number of records in them, protected by passwords as is suitable to the class of passwords in them. Its less data entry on average to retreive a password, and it eliminates having to worry about which sites you need a 123!@# tacked on the end, and which sites don't, etc.

Decent password safes also let you securely store notes, usernames, urls, and so forth... which is often just as important and just as difficult to remember as the actual password.

But this requires I memorize "their weak requirements" for each site as this is not usually disclosed on the usual login page?!

And it still doesn't address the fact that if they get compromised I have to CHANGE my password.

If I'm using a 'system' to generate passwords, then I can't use that system for this site anymore, because the password the system generates for the site is compromised.

The problem I have with systems like this is:

One site won't let you have punctuation... another site requires it. One site says your password is too short. Another says its too long. A site that was happy with your "system" password gets hacked and you have to change it.... and these exceptions build up over time rendering the system an excercise in futility.

Then eventually you get fed up with the exceptions devise a new system and start all over again...

But if you miss any sites when you switch over you have to retain your old system as well.

This sort of all defeats the purpose of a system.

So I have a loose system for the passwords I need daily. And a password app for everything else.

I had a similar system for a while. The problem? One of the sites that had one of my passwords got hacked. Then I had to change it for every other site in that "category" which was a lot of sites, and I'm sure even now that I've missed some. Plus now I have to remember a new password; but still the old one for any sites I missed...

Then another site I used got hacked. And at that point I decided I was better off using a password manager and using different passwords for each site.

Because if some rinky-dink forum I use gets hacked I don't want to have to change my p/w on 40 other sites.

I still use passwords I can remember on sites I log into daily, but my utilities, random stores I rarely shop at, etc all have random strings in a password manager.

I'm not saying it didn't actually happen. I'm saying had you challenged it, they would legally have HAD to give you more time. Of course, if you didn't challenge it and just said ok, then its ok. Its like the police demanding to search your car... if you say "ok"... then they can.

Well it did work just fine for me. So "doesn't always work" is probably accurate.

Yeah that seems pretty dubious. But if they had actually pulled that on me I'd have responded that I'll need time to prepare a new defense against these new charges; and time to consult my lawyer.

There's no way they can charge you with a new offense AT YOUR TRIAL and then prosecute you for it immediately like that.

Speeding is more than just exceeding the posted limit. Driving too fast to maintain safe control of the vehicle is illegal. You lost control of your vehicle. That the issue was your own inexperience more than the weather or the condition of the road doesn't really matter.

Crossing the center line (when not part of a legal passing maneuver is also illegal.)

You can of course legitimately argue that those aren't the best offenses to charge you under; and you might even be right. But face facts -- you were driving and you crashed and you were 100% responsible for the crash -- its pretty hard to do that and not run afoul of the motor vehicle acts in some way.

I think the tickets, while perhaps not ideal, were reasonable choices.

Perhaps; perhaps not. I don't know what happened, what the damage / injury level was. It certainly could have been him just being a dick -- or it could be that he felt you were a legitimate danger to yourself and to the public and wanted to send you that message.

Do you have actual stats on the frequency? Context is important after all. After all, people fall down and die in bathtubs more often than your scenario happens -- and its the reason you need a gun. But what have you done to make your bathtub safe?

Why? Because your life *might* be at some point be at risk? Therefore you should, nay, MUST have the means to kill people via point-and-click in your closet? Maybe its not-reasonable, but I'm not convinced by your argument that its the only reasonable conclusion.

And not just you, a fine upstanding responsible adult, (that's you right?) but every american should have this option; no matter how stupid or irresponsible they prove themselves to be, and they shouldn't have to take any sort of firearms training or competency test to show they have any idea how to use one either. They should even be allowed to have one if they are clinically depressed, or taking anti-psychotics, or if they are habitual drug users etc without any sort of evaluation at all.

Maybe if you didn't let crazed psychotics have guns in the first place (see above) you wouldn't need to defend yourself against them with guns as often.

Wait, was it the governement breaking down your closet door? No? I didn't think so. Someone mentioned dictators becoming president for life etc earlier -- have the rebels in the civil wars and rebellions that followed ever shown much difficulty getting their hands on small arms when it came time to fight? Large armanents sure - its are to get surface to air missiles, but pistols and rifles and such? They flow like water. Why do you think you need one in your closet in advance, just in case "of the government"?

How is that "not a problem" with a bracelet? Perhaps the bracelets are slightly less likely to be lost or stolen. Then again, I've found a lot more lost bracelets in the last 10 years than lost phones... and if they are valuable for identity theft, stealing them might well become a real thing.

Basic geometry dictates that any regular polygon can be inscribed in a circle.

The radius of the circle will be the distance from the center of the polygon to any point. And the diameter double that.

Its pretty self evident (and easily proven) that a regular polygon with an even number of sides will have pairs of parallel sizes opposite each other.

Its pretty self evident (and easily proven) that these pairs of opposite sites form parallel chords.

Bisect the polygon through the centers of a pair of chords.

The length of from the center of the circle to the center of a chord is necessarily less than the radius. (Because the chord is inside the circle.)

Therefor the length of the polygon from point to opposite point through the center is the diamter.

The length of the polygon from chord-center to chord center is less.

So its clear you can rotate the polygon to align the chord centers ol the cover with the points on the hole. Rotate the cover upright so that looking down, you are now fitting a line that is less than the distance between two points between two points.

The cover will drop into the hole.*

* assuming its not to thick

Q.E.D.

Uh... no.

A rigid non-moving pattern, either complete, or just a partial overlay would be pretty trivially detectable by equipment programmed to look for it. (or monitored by a human being).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The iris is much more alive and dynamic than a fingerprint. That said, sure, I guess an iris scanner, made by the lowest bidder, with no eye towards security despite being a security device could fail spectacularly; and be just as happy with a random marble or contact lens as an actual iris.

True enough.