Smoothly rolls down from the top of your screen
After which I stopped reading.
After which I stopped reading.
A cryptosystem that allows inferring the secret key (necessary for encryption/decryption) from plaintext+ciphertext with less-than-brute-force effort is considered broken. I'm guessing that successful cryptolockers use non-broken encryption. So no, having a plain and encrypted version of the same file is not enough to undo cryptolocker damage.
Usually symmetric ciphers use a block size between 128 and 256 bits, the amount of different blocks you can compose from those (and which your file would need to contain) is astronomical. Also, when used properly, the cipher output is also dependent on the cipher's internal state (initialized with a random vector, likely different for each file), so that repeated encryptions of the same block of plaintext in a different file (or different position in the same file) will be different.
Not a specialist, but I took the crypto 101 at school.
they have already stated that they don't want nuclear weapons. So loudly that even Mossad and the CIA don't think they want weapons
"Lol, I told them we don't want nuclear weapons. I think they believed that."
(Spoiler: of course they want nukes, they'd become a because-I-say-so superpower in their own local neighborhood. And of course foreign intelligence knows this, and thinks they want nukes, no matter what anyone says)
I would have thought so too, but the double k indicates that there is a Finnish component to it.
In Finnish, a double consonant (as in, two *same* consonants) would be followed by a wovel (probably exceptions, but can't think of any). Also, there's no double j, and there are very few words that end in r.
If I were to blame that word on someone, it would be Norwegians.
I would find that level of sophistication very unlikely, your average ISP's branded end-user box is put together from the cheapest pieces of shit they've been able to find.
And they have no reason to care about the power consumption of end-user equipment, they're not paying for that power.
You could always run only the non-shitty code outside the sandbox.
Good luck with that. Particularly, with the part of figuring out which software is good enough to not require a sandbox. And that's before considering the bugs your sandbox has.
Nobody ever got fired for using Microsoft..
Seems like a management oversight. I would be shocked to find that I have to pay for upgrades every couple of years.
Try behaving like a seven-year-old in grown man's body (on the webs doesn't count), see how that works for you. Your older peers will be a bigger threat to you (and you to them) than disesase and predators.
Perhaps not, but the supposed "crime" was falsely shouting "fire", and the panic would have happened even if there really was a fire. In any case, no one forced the other patrons to panic. If they did, it was entirely their own fault, and they—not whoever shouted "fire"—are wholly responsible for the consequences.
My understanding of the "shouting fire" metaphore is that it generally assumes it's a false alarm, but I may be wrong. If there really is a fire, the situation becomes very different (there is damage potential for announcing the fact, but there is a larger damage potential for not doing it).
I see this boils down to free will of pepole in a situation they perceive threatening. My understanding about panic (a physical reaction turning off the decision making parts of your brain in a threatening situation, since the decision has already been made: there's a fire, get out now), is that you don't choose whether you get it or not. It depends on how prone you are to get in panic (something you do not have a choice in), and how threatening exactly you consider the situation (in which you do have some choice, by of practicing the situation beforehand).
If we look at the situation statistically, in a full theater there's likely several people who panic at the prospect of being burned alive while queuing for the exit (or by the fact that they may get trampled by other panicing people). The situation is set up in a way that there's direct damage potential from someone shouting a false alarm.
Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater necessarily leads directly to the harm of others
Nope. Wrong. Panicking and trampling over people does that, but it's not the speaker who directly made them do that.
So that mass panic in the theater would have happened anyway, without anyone shouting "fire"?
Looking at the events after they're happened, we can conclude that someone unnecessarily shouting "fire" in a crowded theater was a sufficient condition (thus, leading) to people getting hurt. Was it a necessary condition for people getting hurt that way? Common sense says it was.. also anyone who's looking someone to blame.
Before someone shouts it out? No way of knowing what will happen.
If you offer an incentive (survive a theatre fire / money) to someone for committing a crime (trampling someone to death / shooting someone), did you cause it, or was it all on the person who committed the act?
How about this: If you find yourself needing a firewall, your system design has already failed. Every single system should assume actively hostile environment.
I can only repeat your original subject.
In Nature there are neither rewards nor punishments, there are consequences. -- R.G. Ingersoll