Er, what happens if you do engage reverse at 70?
Nothing. I've never had a car that would let me do that (even old VWs from the 60s). And yes, I am that curious (though I didn't intend to let the clutch back out)!
It doesn't affect the security of RSA overall, but it strongly affects the security of certain keys, rendering them totally compromised.
...Poof, all the ones that managed to 'accidentally' share a factor with another one pop out with their factors since a public key is just two big prime numbers multiplied together.
Does this mean that every key generated has a chance of rendering a previously existing key totally compromised? If that's the case, RSA is actually broken. There are only so many prime numbers, so as more keys are created, more keys will potentially be compromised. Please, tell me I'm wrong (using a car analogy if possible).
How is the prosecutor going to meet that burden without putting the lady on the stand and having her testify about her mental state (memory)?
They're not. They're going to assume that she's lying and jail her until she remembers it. If she's not lying, she'll be locked up for a long time.
I understand how the US benefits from everyone else signing this treaty, but how is this in the interests of the other countries? Why is everyone else so motivated to sign this?
Please, stop spreading the FUD. Regular tap water can just as well cause water intoxication if you drink too much of it, and ultra-pure water is by no means unsafe to drink.
It does taste weird, though. Although the weirdest tasting water I've ever tried was D2O (which was also ultra pure).
They could take off their badges or shield them while they're working. You'd think that would catch someone's attention, though.
It's even sleazier when you consider that he was previously a senator with close relations to the MPAA. He's not a Washington outsider. He's been on the receiving of his current relationship, and the way he considers it to work is that legislation is payed for. In addition to an admission of bribing Congress, it seems he's admitting that he was accepting bribes while he was in Congress.
Wow, you're getting really worked up...
You can not absolutely trust anyone, including cops and judges. This is why everything should be handled by multiple people with verifiable paper trail and other kinds of documents. One person has a somewhat high probability of being a crook, ten unrelated people recording and documenting the search would have to be a part of enormous conspiracy to be all crooks. Trustworthiness of evidence should not be evaluated by judging the honesty of one person.
This is a mess of unrelated statements that don't seem to have much bearing on your conclusion. But anyway,
Everything should "be handled by multiple people with verifiable paper trail and other kinds of documents", but how do you treat evidence that isn't handled this way? And saying something should happen is weak, anyway. People should tell the truth.
Ten unrelated people in this situation are actually related. They're all cops. You don't need a lap cat or a smoky room to make a conspiracy. The fact that cops hesitate to report on or testify against each other is fairly well established.
And finally, the trustworthiness of evidence should absolutely "be evaluated by judging the honesty of one person"! You're familiar with the analogy of the chain and the weakest link?
No. All it does is follow the ridiculous "Let's weaken the government so we won't have to improve it" A.K.A. "Government should not be more powerful than rich people". What is the root of the problem.
The government is a tool wielded by the rich. Why are you so anxious to sharpen that tool?
Punish the people who break the law, punish cops who break the law more severely because they are given more trust, but keep the evidence.
The people who would be responsible for punishing the cops are ultimately the cops. If you can't trust them to not break the law, how could you trust them to punish each other for breaking the law.
Also, while I agree that tainting evidence could let guilty persons go free, it also serves to protect the innocent from overzealous investigators. If evidence is not collected and handled properly, it can't be guaranteed that it is, in fact, genuine evidence. It's why chain of custody is king. The premise behind this is that it's better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man be imprisoned.
Ever had the thought that the contempt that intellectuals hold the rest of us in might be the cause of some of the bad feelings? How many intellectuals do you know who consider ordinary Americans to be 'dumbfucks'? What would you think about someone who considered you to be a dumbfuck?
Most of the population really are 'dumbfucks', but it's not contempt you're seeing. It's frustration. Most of the population are content making decisions, both big and small, based on emotional feelings rather than rational reasoning. Emotions are easily, and regularly, manipulated and can have huge society-wide consequences. The common man is treated like a sheep because he acts like a sheep. And because his every other action solely benefits the [shepherds?|wolves?], everyone else gets dragged down with him. This is frustrating, and watching people make the same stupid mistakes over and over boggles the mind.
... bleakness ... desolation ... plastic forks ...