Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Insane (Score 2) 294

The articles about this keep saying that "recent international research has shown there may be a link" without providing the source of that data! I can't find it anywhere, all the studies I can find show no evidence of a link. What the hell are these assholes talking about?! Why don't these journalists think this is an important piece of information to include with their articles?

I don't care if a bunch of nuts half a world away banned wifi for their elementary students. I but do care if they had a good reason to do it!

Someone has falsely claimed that "recent international research has shown there may be a link", the press keep quoting it, and are of course unable to give a source since there is none.

Comment Re:Why make it that complicated? (Score 3, Insightful) 191

I've bought precisely ONE lottery ticket my whole life (knowing statistically that my likelihood of winning is the maximum at that point*).

How do you figure? Each ticket has the same chance of winning, the more you buy the more likely you are to win. But the odds are such that the expected return over the long run is less than what you would pay in.

I find it pretty funny that people who never gamble are completely clueless when it comes to statistics and probabilities, while those who waste loads of money gambling know exactly what they're doing.

Comment Some details (Score 5, Informative) 137

Here

The problem is this: the elliptic curve digital signature algorithm, which Bitcoin transactions rely on for security, has three inputs: the transaction, the signerâ(TM)s private key and a random number. The algorithm then outputs two values, denoted r and s, where s is calculated with the formula k-1(z+rd), z being the hash of the message, k the random number and d the private key. r is dependent only on k. Thus, if the owner of an address signs two transactions with the same random number (and of course the same private key, as every address is linked to one private key), one can extract two s values from the two signatures, subtract them to make the rd terms cancel out, and extracting the private key from there becomes a simple division problem (a more detailed writeup can be found here). Normally, this is not a problem; given a true random number generator, the first âoecollisionâ should take place roughly at the same time as the heat death of the universe. As it turned out, however, java.security.SecureRandom proved to be not so random, generating the same âoerandomâ number twice on many occasions.

I just noticed the "found here" link goes to an article from January. That makes me both unsure they've got the right bug and annoyed it hasn't been fixed already.

Comment Double the delay every failed attempt (Score 5, Interesting) 114

I'm always amazed when passwords are locked out after just three or five attempts. Allowing a hundred would still protect against brute force, while never being a problem for an actual human being. Even better would be to start with a one second delay, doubling it every time, so a brute force attempt would take ages but a human only gets some time to think.

Comment Buried in committee (Score 1) 166

A law legalizing gay marriage was proposed by 76 (of 201) MPs. The Legal Affairs Committee voted 9 to 8 to not let it go to a vote in the parliament, citing lack of time and low priority due to not being signed by a majority of MPs. There's been talk of citizens' initiatives getting the same treatment; specifically (unsurprisingly) an initiative on gay marriage that got the required 50k signatures in a few hours.

The law on citizens' initiatives requires any that get over 50k signatures to go to a vote in the parliament. However, it can be delayed indefinitely if the relevant committee never decides to bring it to a vote by the full parliament. After the next election, any remaining initiatives are scrapped.

Obviously, this goes against the spirit of the law, so there's a good chance the situation will change.

Comment Naruto link is to a search engine (Score 1) 364

This link is to a search engine, where "juegos de naruto" give some hits for "juegos de tronos" which is Game of Thrones. How on earth is this a valid takedown request? Why should Google remove links to a search engine, especially when the search is for something other than the infringing material?

Slashdot Top Deals

Your computer account is overdrawn. Please reauthorize.

Working...