We take a significantly different approach. Instead of explicitly storing decoy vaults, we construct single ciphertext which, when decrypted with any wrong master password, yields a decoy vault that appears to have been sampled from the distribution of plaintext vaults (across the entire user population). This approach is inspired by the theory of honey encryption .
Still not certain I understand how that works, but it certainly isn't an obvious or trivial approach to take.
I'd guess the difficulty is that you want everything encrypted: that is, the password database will contain a list of website or server names, as well as the usernames and also the passwords. It's pretty difficult to distinguish between a valid and invalid password assuming they're generated randomly according to sets of rules. However, the rest of the data is likely to be human readable and full of standard dictionary words.
So it's only easy to make the password database inscrutable upon attempted decryption if it ONLY contains the passwords. In which case a list of servers and user names is held unencrypted. And that bit is undesirable. This system therefore has to generate entire valid looking vaults that decrypt with incorrect passwords.
There is no extrapolation from the computer industry. But quite simply there are a number of animals that don't appear to age significantly (they die of natural causes but without the death rate increasing with age), and plenty of even more extreme examples in the plant kingdom, of trees apparently thousands of years old. So there doesn't appear to be a fundamental problem with maintaining cells in working order, indefinitely.
Over evolutionary timescales though, organisms that evolve and adapt will always tend to outpace biologically immortal organisms, and as the other respondents correctly state, there is no evolutionary imperative to survive much beyond childbirth (and it is likely even a negative in evolutionary terms to linger around competing for resources with your children).
However, if people decide that regardless of the above, they want to live forever, I think it is biologically possible, and once someone finds some real traction on that problem, it will happen.
But exactly why do all these systems start breaking down? I agree we're not getting particularly close to 120 year lifespans with our current approach, which is tinkering with treatments for the ailments of old age. But I suspect there actually is a simple magic bullet somewhere - something to stop us getting old. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but I think at some point a switch will be found to turn off aging.
To clarify, by 'simple', I mean compared to fixing cancer, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, cataracts, osteoporosis, atherosclerosis, stroke, and so on
I wondered how long the car analogy would take! A more accurate analogy is if you innocently bought a fake Ford, and then took it in for a routine service. The garage discovers it's a fake. They therefore point it down the road and trigger the acceleration problem, destroying your car by smashing it through a brick wall.
Sorry was a fake so we took the liberty of breaking it. No you can't have a refund, we didn't make it or profit from it...
Length cubed divided by length? I'm sticking to square millimetres! 0.04mm2 for my car thanks.
Salmond should rightly have been savaged by the media for repeated seemingly untrue claims he has made and the allegations of bullying, but he has certainly not been by the BBC, they've been fawning over him in half the interviews I've seen. Every claim he has made about EU membership and currency has been rebutted by everyone else involved. He even implied the Queen supported Scottish independence, which is a low thing to do to someone who isn't really able to come out and express her true opinions on the matter.
Plus the study you cited shows 18-24 voted against independence, along with all those 55+. It was only really the 16-17 and 25-34 groups who voted strongly in favour of independence.
*One* person beheaded. It's still one too many, but the fact is that two people armed with assault rifles and a desire to kill innocent people would almost certainly have managed to do an awful lot more damage, even if passers by were similarly armed.
Also, given that the US murder rate including Chicago and DC is pretty much 4 times the UK rate, but without them is less? Well thank you for informing me, I'm heading to America next year, but there's absolutely no fucking chance I'm visiting cities with those sorts of murder rates - I hadn't realised those US crime dramas were non-fiction!
It won't take long until you can get hard disc and DVD enclosures that matches the finish and cross-section of this case and is designed to simply stack under the main case. It would be very cool to have a thunderbolt port in the bottom of the case for that, and with daisy chaining, and another port in the bottom of the add-on enclosure, you could just keep making your tower taller. But even if you're running cables at the back, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
But generally I agree that expandability has been compromised for design and as a result it looks like a great piece of kit for consumers, but maybe not so much for pros. I quite like the trashcan design though - if they'd build one with Core i7 internals, everyday RAM and standard GPUs I would definitely be very interested.
You were just getting your units mixed up when aiming that joke. Head height is about 2 yards, not 2 metres.
Actually I'm also only used to mpg, but I'm trying to get into using l/100km.
The problem is no one has any intuition for comparing MPG values. If you do 10000 miles a year, and switch from a car that does 40mpg to one that does 60mpg, how much will you save? The calculation isn't one you can do in your head easily.
But a switch from 7.1 l/100km to 4.7 l/100km? I can work out pretty quickly it will save around 400 litres / £550 a year.
The next person to mention spaghetti stacks to me is going to have his head knocked off. -- Bill Conrad