It's not theft, it's copyr--, err, embezzlement.
I tried the Blackberry Microsoft for a while, and it isn't even so bad.
commas -- fundamentally changing the meaning of sentences since 300 BC
If it does only what you're programming it to do, then it's not AI
The 3310 wasn't nearly as indestructible as the 3210.
Anyway, the actual brick was the 6150. The first GSM phone to use an ARM processor, and a convenient blunt weapon for self defense.
I occasionally listen to dot matrix, but to be honest, CNC mill is so much better. CNC mill over monster cables; it will blow your mind.
I always wanted retro USB drives that emulate the floppy disk drive sound when accessed. Maybe this will become a thing.
But is it also microsoft?
I already indicated in my last comment that you're tearing down a straw man; I didn't even mention the theoretical proof. My point is, that gibberish is sufficiently non-deterministic to still be practically secure to use as an OTP. Your reply couldn't have made that more clear, the fact that my example was't even a full-length OTP but rather regular repeated-key XOR notwithstanding.
And frankly, bitching about high user IDs, itself useless and ad-hominem, while posting anonymously? Grow a fucking pair.
PS: Check this out if you actually want to do a bit of practical messing with crypto. It might help to get out of your ivory tower once in a while.
To "update" your existing OTP by N bytes, you'd have to burn N bytes of your orginal OTP.
Okay, AC. here is a base64 encoded file. It's the result of a XOR against gibberish. The original language was ASCII coded English.
The gibberish isn't even quality gibberish because i couldn't be bothered to type enough gibberish myself, so this challenge is considerably easier, even.
Since you claim with full-length gibberish it's "handing over the message on a silver platter.", this ought to be utterly trivial.
Demonstrate that besides tearing down straw-men, you actually know some of your shit, and decrypt it.
could be something as common as the Bible.
That'd be a pretty dumb idea, because IF you get to a meaningful message after XORing it with a meaningful (syntactically, anyway) message, then you can be sure that you indeed got the "real" key. The odds are, for practical purposes, exactly zero that that happened by accident.
You're right that the key doesn't need to be truly random, but it must at least be gibberish.
If they were born with two extra arms, learned to control the muscles involved in moving those arms, then have their extra arms aputated and replaced for something bionic, then yes, should work.
I pretty much miss the + operator, but in my experience, - still works. Can you give an example of where it does not?
Thanks! Very interesting