This is not a Zero Knowledge Protocol because the other party has the same information as you do.
Furthermore, this algorithm is equivalent to a DH key exchange between A and B followed by a HMAC(key,M), with the advantage that message size is not limited to the group size.
The title should be "American Books that shaped America". The Capital not being included in that list is akin to the Catholic church leaving the Luteran bible outside a list of influential works.
It took me a second to know what book you were referring to. I've never seen it called that. Every mention I've ever seen of it (and I live in the US), it's Das Kapital.
If we're going with non-American books that shaped America, John Locke would have a much better claim than Karl Marx, given that Locke's ideas had a profound influence on the American form of government.
I think you're right, and it must be because this is from the Library of Congress, which is a repository of books published in the US. A slightly less contentious example would be de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America
I see a huge number of comments on this thread implying that carefulness is related to the road danger. It's the perceived danger that matters. You don't need to make the roads more dangerous, just need to make them look so.
I'm not from USA, and on the last time I visited it, I noticed how recklessly people drive on the highways, most of them were on the phone, eating, or doing something else(there was even a lady fixing her hair with her right hand, talking on the cellphone with her left hand and holding the steering wheel with her elbow, that freaked me out).
If those people behave the same driving on a street, I can see that being the cause of the majority of accidents, since the reaction time for events will be smaller, since most occurrences happen within a few meters of the car.
Finally, I know that this is not the focus of the article, but the USA cities need to focus more on the people that either cannot or will not(like me) drive. LA, LV and Miami, for instance, were pretty hellish until I finally gave in and rented a car, with poor public transportation and pedestrian access.
I'm frequently surprised by the lack of sidewalks everywhere outside of the downtown core of many cities. Perhaps its different in cities I haven't been to, but compared to where I grew up in, it does seem like everywhere else is car-first. Its not just the states or even big cities, I've lived in a small town in Ontario that was similar.
It makes me wonder if its related to the age of the area. Newer areas seem to have more sidewalks.
I visited San Diego (I was living in the UK at the time, and found it impossible to get anywhere. I was routinely told that only poor people caught the bus (and it could be dangerous), and there were no pavements anywhere to walk on. I walked to the nearest burger place for lunch every day, a hellish 1-mile jaunt through rubbish-strewn wasteland getting beeped at every time I tried to cross a road.
In contrast, every European and Australian city I've lived in has catered for pedestrians and cyclists to the extent that it's at least possible to walk or bike anywhere you need to go (even if it would take hours in these huge Aussie cities).
I still wonder at it. How do Americans feel about living in such a shitty environment?
I hate the "only poor people take the bus" vile bullshit prejudice and I've seen it here on Hacker News as well.
"America" however is not one environment and is INCREDIBLY diverse. There are places such as you've described in the US as well. Not everywhere has such prejudice against public transit too. However I believe as a whole the US is (or at least was) moving in general to a society that revolves around the automobile.
I'll tell you the absolute worst part of not being in an automobile is for me (as a woman) - the form of street harassment where assholes either beep at you or yell comments at you out the window going by. This has been a huge issue for me in every American city I ever lived in. Somehow people think this is appropriate behavior. It makes me not want to walk in a walkable area.
That is one thing I have to give to Hyderabad (India). For all its faults, you could safely walk on the side of the streets around the office park during the day, and drivers gave you space instead of doing the ugly American "I'm gonna mow you down for daring to enter my road!" thing.
Walking around at break to the street vendors was pretty cool, even if digestively perhaps risky :-)
Where in San Diego were you? I am wondering if there is a place in that beautiful city that is rubbish strewn. It's got horrible public transport though, agreed.
It was a few years ago, so things may have changed. I was out in the suburbs a bit, staying with a friend (who worked and therefore couldn't give me lifts everywhere). The wasteland looked like it was eventually going to be more suburb, but wasn't actually a building site.
I did find it weird that there were these patches of the city where just nothing was built. British cities are incredibly compact - if it's not built on or being built on then it's a manicured public park, usually fenced. But Aussie cities have odd areas that are just empty, too... must be the relative age of the cities that causes this.
Like most Americans, I have access to a car, so it's not a shitty environment. A place that caters to slow walkers and cyclists sounds worse to me. I think we tend to overrate inconveniences that affect us personally and underrate inconveniences that affect everyone else.
I think we tend to overrate _perceived_ inconveniences that affect us personally and underrate _perceived_ inconveniences that affect everyone else.
Perceived because...
A place that caters to slow walkers and cyclists, if minimally well designed, actually improves car traffic throughput. Yes, that may sound counterintuitive. Go look at Copenhagen. You'd never be able to squeeze so many people through so little transportation infrastructure if they were all traveling by car.
Las Vegas is perhaps the worst city on the planet for the carless. I've had many amusing incidents of attempting to walk places, where not just sidewalks, but roads simply do no go through.
LV, LA, and Miami are particularly appalling examples of US cities which have terrible pedestrian access.
That said, I've never seen as many people talking on their phone while driving as I saw last month in Reykjavik.
I'd like to point out the writer for dismissing customisability. This is my opinion, but the popularity of some apps used to customise my phone leads me to believe I do not stand alone.
Let's not forget that the android can offer advanced functionality that Apple seems to refuse to offer on its devices: access to a local file system, ability to work as an USB stick(it's even possible to have your phone work as a boot stick), being able to turn its wireless card into monitor mode for mobile sniffing.
Last, but not least: Waterproofness and mechanical resistance. Apple seems to have forgotten these two points on the iPhone, even though they already have a good starting point(phone with no removable battery).
So, yeah, I don't think apple will win over the premium market that easily.
EDIT: Adjusting newlines, forgot that newfags can't triforce.
I laughed when he wrote that Android customization is basically alternate keyboards and widgets. Clearly he's never even held one in his hand. I switched to Android after four iPhones and I'm amazed at how much easier and quicker it is to do things on Android when I have total control over the UI.
That's not what I wrote. I said that iOS8 addresses some of these points, with keyboards as just one example, and that the key difference is now personal taste rather than screen size or availability.
Clearly some people prefer iOS and others Android. But that's not the issue, is it?
>You can get a bigger screen, you can change the keyboard, you can put widgets on the notification panel (if you insist) and so on. Pretty much all the external reasons to choose Android are addressed
It wouldn't be hard to come up with a list of dozens of features that you can customize on Android that you can't on iOS. If you really think you're covered "pretty much all the reasons" to choose Android, you haven't researched the platform very thoroughly.
It is that exact line which broke me out of the "this is an objective analysis" trance. It is clear to me the author tried to impartial For that I have to credit him. Yet afterwards the faux-impartiality became grating. I can only conclude he did his best but just does not fully understand Android.
Leaving out stuff like water proof-ness, wireless charging, and multi-windows. These are features which in five years we'll all take for granted. These are real innovations.
I was honestly expecting more from Apple. Apple has the engineers and the component budget to reach the forefront and push it forward. Yet I'm left wondering what their component budget actually went into and where their engineering time went.
There's a lot of stuff that I wouldn't personally call "customisation" that matters in various markets too, SD cards, TV reception or dual-sim and the like.
Android will almost certainly always be more customisable than iOS, the question for many users though isn't "which is more customisable?", it's "is it customisable enough for what I need/want to do?".
In this regard iOS8 begins to close off some of the more significant constraints iPhones and iPads have. For any given individual it may not go far enough but what's being introduced will almost certainly make it a better option for some people and some of those people may now buy iPhones instead of high end Android.
The point isn't that this brings the two platforms level, it's that iOS now competes for a small piece of the market where it previously didn't.
He's saying that it's not just down to taste. iOS remains fundamentally less capable for many power users who buy high-end phones, and your article didn't touch on that point. Everything from using a decent browser or maps application to using SIP, Google Voice, or a calling card is painfully broken on iOS. Expecting users who rely on those features (a lot for default apps and some of the features the other posters mentioned like waterproofing, admittedly fewer for my other example) to switch to iOS before it has those features would be like expecting music production power users to switch to Android before low latency audio processing is fully baked. Neither of those are matters of taste.
Just as a remark, proving that given a prime n, n^2 = 1(mod 24)[equivalent to n^2-1 is multiple of 24] is pretty easy:
i) prove that n^2 = 1(mod 3). Enumerating, n = {-1,1} (mod 3) (mod 3) [since n is prime, n != 0 (mod 3)]. n^2 = 1 (mod 3)
n^2 - 1 = 0 (mod 3). Exists m such that n^2-1 = 3m.
ii) prove that n^2 = 1(mod 8). Enumerating, n = {1,3,-3,-1} (mod 8) [ n != pair (mod 8) since then, it would be divisible by 2]. n^2 = {1,9,9,1} (mod 8) => n^2 = {1,8+1}(mod 8) => n^2 = 1 (mod 8). Exists k such that n^2 - 1 = k8.
iii) There exists 2 integers m,k such that k8 = m3. m must have an 8 factor and k a 3 factor. Then, there exists j such that j = m/8 = k/3 = (n^2-1)/24. qed.
I am not sure how those guys did it, but I was talking to a friend of mine today, and I guess that it had something to do with forcing the server to use its private key to check for information sent to it. Then you use the heartbleed bug to intercept the intermediate forms on the information you sent to be decrypted/authenticated. Since you know the plaintext, the ciphertext and the intermediate forms, it should be possible to recover the key.
As I said, I am not sure that is right or if that was the method used to exploit cloudflare, as I didn't had the time nor the knowledge of openssl implementation to test it out, I am just throwing my guess out there before the official exploit comes about.
You can't recover keys with known plaintext attacks in most encryption algorithms used nowadays, plus, as far as I know, they don't even use the private key to encrypt your request. They only use it for a DH handshake, which establishes the session key you are going to use.
tl;dr: State is bad for optimizations, FP encourages you to write most of the code state-free.
One of the perks of FP is that it exposes pure functions, functions that have a fixed output for a given input. Since it's really bad at storing and mutating state(canonically can only be done via monads), it encourages you to separate your code into pure and mutable states. Let's take, for instance, a function that reads a file and xor's that with a random byte stream. A non functional approach would be something like this:
A possible way to write the same function using FP, using currying[1] and map[2](a fundamental construct in FP), one can write the code as this:
byte xor(byte b1, byte b2){
return byte(byte b2){
return b1^b2
}
}
//Here I assume the language has file and random_stream as iterables
void xor_file_stream(file input,stream random_stream){
return map(map(xor,random_stream),input)
}
While, in a naive implementation, this would be much slower than the procedural implementation, there are much stronger assumptions one can make in respect to the functions while optimizing the compiler. First, the function xor is a pure function with 2^9 possible input values, and can be substituted by a precomputed lookup table, speeding up the map function. Since the function is guaranteed not to hold state, one can also unroll the map loops, or paralelize it if needed.
But remember that most "pure" FP languages are bad at keeping state, turning a huge game(for instance) into a challenge both to the programmer and to the compiler.
Furthermore, this algorithm is equivalent to a DH key exchange between A and B followed by a HMAC(key,M), with the advantage that message size is not limited to the group size.