Well, that was due to a misunderstanding. They delivered pounds dynamite instead of pounds sterling.
That's an alternative I've not yet encountered. Could you tell something about its features? Is it free? And where do you get it?
I guess the part of star trek which fascinated them most was the captain asking: "Computer, where's Riker?" and getting an accurate response immediately
Maybe his new book would have been about intelligence agencies threatening science fiction authors who come too close to reality. The NSA read his manuscript from his computer and thought: "Great idea, let's test it on him."
Maybe that's why wireless power is pushed these days
Considering your decision to discontinue your series, we would appreciate any notes you have to be emailed.
With this sentence you've given away the fake. Of course the NSA already knows his notes in detail. Better than he himself, in fact.
Repeated iteration of functions certainly is relevant for the des(des(des())) situation mentioned in the title and the first paragraph of raymorris' post. I didn't question that part. I did question the part where he claimed that layering different types of encryption on top of each other makes the encrytion as weak as the weakest one. It is true for hashes (which I explicitly acknowledged), but I strongly doubt that I have to fear that data I'm sending through an SSH link is highly insecure just because I've run a rot13 on it before sending.
You calculated hashes. I said for hashes it is clear.
But the statement for encryption basically states that if I encrypt my text with rot13 (weak encryption) and then send it through ssh (thus applying strong encryption on top of the weak rot13), the ssh data stream (which is now encrypted with two different algorithms) would be no harder to crack than the weaker of the two encryptions (which clearly is rot13). That is what I don't buy.
No. But they can be programmed in Logo.
Sorry, but on this system, we don't allow self-modifying code.
No, because the projection is on the inside of the hollow earth.
Don't you understand? There's a hologram which contains everything about the world. Including how to cure cancer. And those scientists are just starting to understand how to read it.
While different hashes on top of each other are quite obviously just as good as the weakest, I don't see why this should be the case for encryption.
Oops, just notice I forgot the antineutrinos.