So the rest of us have to be censored because a small minority read at a library, or have infantile filtering software at work? If you, your employer, your school, or your nanny want to do that, fine. But if major sites started using real lanaugage that people use, there'd be more pressure on the infantile filtering software to allow people to view sites that use "forbidden words".

Also, there's other methods to fool the filtering software. That's even a better option. Turn it into a cat/mouse game, which would increase the costs for the filter writers.

Would Apple be where it is if Jobs wasn't an asshole?

Do you think Linux would still be a success if Linus wasn't there to keep dumbasses from accumulating more political clout than technical competence and steering it toward ruin?

Being a fuckhead like Jobs or Torvalds is ONE way of enforcing order. But it's not the only way. It's probbably the most obvious and easy though. But no, I don't agree that Jobs and Torvalds have to be shitheads for Apple and Linux to succeed.

We all know the word is shitload. We all know Linus is swearing, and he didn't bleep himself. This is an adult website, not a child website. So can we please have an honest depiction of what's actually said rather than some silly characters replacing the full spelling of the word like this is a cartoon? FCC rules don't apply to slashdot, that's radio and TV.

I'll never understand this weird deception people have that if you miss-spell fuck as f*ck, shit as sh-T, cocksucker as c*cksu**er, piss as p*ss, motherfucker as motherf*cker, cunt as c*nt, and tits as t*ts, you're someone "not swearing". Uhh.. yeah. (My regards to the late George Carlin)

Yes, it's possible for IE6 to use TLS 1.0. But it's not enabled by default. Since it's not on by default, it'll essentially be broken when users visit a site with SSL 3 disabled.

I don't have an old IE6 machine to check myself, but I've found several references that say it's not on.

https://news.ycombinator.com/i...

I think you missed my point. The point was about the implications of removing SSL3 from the server side. Many times you can't just simply change something on a webserver to fix one browser without breaking another.

In this case, the effects seem to be minimal, and would only break IE6. That's not a problem in 2014, but would have been a major problem if this was discovered in 2007.

The last major browser that doesn't support TLS 1 was IE6. Even Microsoft doesn't support that piece of crap anymore. I'm sure there's some special cases of embedded systems out there that rely on SSL3 only, but that's a small minority.

So the question to me is, what would break if you disabled SSL3? Breaking the web for IE6 users happened a long, long time ago.

I don't know who to credit for this
.
.
.
If, therefore, I write code as clever as I possibly can - I can't effectively debug it

Based on your quote, probably (originally) Don Knuth.

“Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.” -Don Knuth.

  What theory does he reject? It's simple math that shows that Munroe's method is better for creating stronger passwords (at least for the average user)

The theory he rejects is the hidden assumption that people will actually pick random words. You've also missed that hidden assumption, and focused on the math. I tend to agree with the security researcher above that the assumption is wrong, and people won't pick random words for passwords.

Most people have a bank account and an ATM card. The ATM card has only a 4 digit pin on it. That's only 10,000 possibilities, or about 13 bits of entropy. Since most people choose dates (birthdays, anniversaries), there's really only about 400 possibilities for the average person. But yet you don't hear about mass amount of fraud when people are robbed from ATMs. Why? Because to withdraw the money, you need two things in your posession. The card, and the pin. If you get the card, you also get a small number of tries on the card before it's locked. Even at 1/400 per try it's unlikely you'll be robbed with 3 guesses.

  The larger problem is that "security people" tend to think entirely different than most everyone else, and just assume people act like them. They don't, and no amount of education or pleading will change that. So if you want real security on the web, it's time to ditch passwords as the sole means of authenticating people. You can't change human nature, and that's the root of the problem.

  Ebola is actually no worse than AIDS, from what I can tell from a quick search. So long as there's no bodily fluid contact, you're fine.

I agree with everything else you're saying, but this is absolutely false. AIDS is VERY difficult to get. You won't get AIDS from casual contact with saliva, urine, sputum, or feces. Ebola can be contracted by any of these coming in contact with your eye.

So they're worlds apart in terms of how transmissible each is.

Other people talk about the self-promotional nature of Edison, and how Tesla wasn't as interested in that. That's true, and that's a piece of the answer. But there's another more basic difference in what they invented. Edison invented end products that people came into contact with every day, like the electric light or the phonograph. Tesla invented the infra-structure necessary for modern life like AC power generation, and the AC motor. Those are hugely important, but the average person doesn't come into contact with them directly, only the effect of it.

So it's much easier for the average person to see what Edison did for them, but harder for them to see what Tesla did for them. It shouldn't be any wonder that Tesla isn't well known.

Hello,

As a maths grad working with computers, you probably have to rely on documentation for any tool you're using, right? The article is claiming the documentation is inaccurate. If we can't rely on the documentation to be accurate, what can we rely on? Maple, Matlab, and Mathematica ALSO rely on the documentation being accurate. If they told you one precision, and you got another, might you not complain, and want that information widely spread so they're more apt to fix it?

Also, I've noticed that Math people seem to have a bias for perfect answers. That's rarely, if ever the case in science. Science is often "good enough", not perfect. If the processor gives a "good enough" answer for what you're trying to calculate, then so be it. Not everyone needs the exact answer as you might need in mathematics.

Apparently you don't understand what I'm saying if you're talking about copyright law. I never actually mentioned that. But alas, all you can do is redirect to something you can win on.

I see Ray. Interesting that you can't respond to my argument and have to resort to critiquing a spelling error.

Most stores these days have their own store credit cards. To apply for them you give them your SS#.

The FBI doesn't want its agents to lie, or default on student loans (the latter is often simply a matter of economics, not honesty), but yet the Snowden documents reveal that the FBI commits perjury in federal court to hide the true, illegal sources of information they got from the NSA. Described here, http://www.alexaobrien.com/sec... Search for "Parallel Construction"