Randomness is often considered to be an unpredictable pattern, but what is and isnt predictable is dependent on knowledge, so its not an absolute truth.
According to quantum theory, you're wrong. The point of using this technology is that the results cannot be predicted, however knowledgeable you may be. That's why there's a fuzz.
Now, what's needed is some mechanism to ensure no tampering with the diamond can be done.
The root of the problem (pun intended) is NOT that the SSL/TLS certificate hierarchy is a centralized trust, but that there are hundreds of roots of trust, any one of which may be compromised,
The problem is the consequences when a centralized trust is broken. In principle, the number of roots does not matter (even if in real life, it makes it easier to find a viable attack route), because the root of the evil is that it will suffice to break a single point.
A proper design would make sure that even in the case of successful hackers, rogue employees, silent break-and-entry by foreign intelligence agencies or hostile government take-overs, the consequences would not be dire.
This is why some people like the idea of using DNSSEC for distributing key material: there exists only a single valid path of trust to a single root for a key associated with any given name: its actually more centralized than SSL/TLS, which is what is desired.
Even though based on false premises (IMHO), your conclusion is intriguing. Would you kindly explain which threats dnssec will remove?
One thing Windows did right was the Taskbar. It is, in all seriousness, an extremely good metaphor. It separates the acts of launching programs from managing which ones are running, because, dammit, those are different things.
The importance of this difference is entirely in the eye of the beholder. At the moment, I'm still stuck in the same world as you, I'm used to a better feeling of control. But the iOS and OSX users certainly don't care if the application is starting or is already started - what they want is to use it where they left it.
OSX, with its Dock, conflates launching a program with looking at a window that it has opened. The implicit metaphor is that all programs are always "running,"
I don't agree. The implicit metaphore is that the tool should be where you left it in the state that you left it. It's just a different approach. I think it's better for most people. Linux kernel developers and sysadmins are not most people in this sense.
Are you sure that it's common in Belguim to "ask for clarification"?
And if it is, do we know that Google did not?
Why is it that Iran had thousands of replacement centrifuges? Thousands? Of Replacements?
IIRC, retiring about 800 centrifuges a year is expected under normal operation.
"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger
