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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1) 248 248

> IMO, as someone with a background in science, scepticism is the only logical option for science. I'm sceptical of all scientific results. Thats how progress is made, by not taking things at face value.

As anything in this life, scepticism is very useful during a phase when proofs are sought. If such proofs are examined and deemed valid, it would be foolish to continue using scepticism. Though, that is exactly what we observe -- even if just as trolling.

Of course, if one thinks like the original Skeptics, which seemed to believe "no real knowledge is ever possible", then it would be alright to doubt everything all the time.

(I was about to blast English for being different from my language and cripple words, but for once it seems "skeptics" is a more correct derivation from Greek roots... well, one cannot always win, I suppose).

Even when the results are examined and deemed valid one must always be sceptical otherwise theres the risk that some discovery that would find the flaw in these results might be ignored.

Comment Re:More Bias. More experimental error. (Score 2) 248 248

It's amazing how little science exists within science these days. Everyone has lost touch with reality.

Western science is very unreliable. Take sexuality for example. It would be impossible these days, in the western world, for a scientist to announce a result that showed that homosexuality is, in some cases, not something that someone is born with. They'd never work in science again no matter how valid their results. There are certain areas in which western science is just not allowed to meddle. Our understanding of climate change is hopelessly fucked up and its doubtful there will ever be any useful scientific results on this from the west. Its all confirmation bias and covering up/ignoring unfavourable results.

Submission + - Michael Chertoff Makes the Case against Back Doors

koan writes: Schneier on Security had an interesting link to a comment made by Michael Chertoff When asked about whether the government should be able to require back doors. He provided this response:

I think that it’s a mistake to require companies that are making hardware and software to build a duplicate key or a back door even if you hedge it with the notion that there’s going to be a court order. And I say that for a number of reasons and I’ve given it quite a bit of thought and I’m working with some companies in this area too.

More at the link. https://www.emptywheel.net/2015/07/26/michael-chertoff-makes-the-case-against-back-doors/

Comment Re: Looking more and more likely all the time... (Score 1) 248 248

The physics are most certainly NOT uncontroversial.

If this thing were to truly work, it would have insane implications to some basic assumptions about the universe - namely about the very laws of physics themselves.

This device working means that the laws of physics do vary by translation, which goes against every single other observation ever made. The science behind it is most certainly not clearly sound. Skepticism is the only logical option for this thing.

IMO, as someone with a background in science, scepticism is the only logical option for science. I'm sceptical of all scientific results. Thats how progress is made, by not taking things at face value.

Comment Re:Wait, you have to TYPE the password??? (Score 1) 316 316

Copy/paste cache scrapers exist, and are common for browsers with bugs. Training people not to copy/paste passwords is a good idea.

You're promoting perpetuating a long-standing, widespread and hugely-damaging user security error in order to avoid a relatively obscure problem which can actually be fixed through purely technical means. Not a win.

Comment Re:OpenID Connect scales at O(n^2) (Score 1) 316 316

What you describe as a problem is actually part of the solution. The problem with classic OpenID was that it was virtually impossible to get, say 1st Bank of MyButt, to use it, because absolutely anyone could be an identity provider. I personally agree with you that classic OpenID was better in that respect, but 1st Bank of MyButt doesn't. They're hemming and hawing about letting Google manage their user's identities, but they will at least consider it.

Comment Re:Wait, you have to TYPE the password??? (Score 1) 316 316

You're actually very wrong. Long complicated passwords are horrifically impossible to remember causing people to write them down or store them in managers with simpler passwords to open the manager.

Putting them in password managers is the right thing to do.

Length is all that matters for passwords. You're better off with "thatswhatshesaid" (26 ^ 16) than "B4c0nL0v3r!" (72 ^ 11). You're 162 times better off, in fact.

26 ^ 16 = 43,608,742,899,428,874,059,776 72 ^ 11 = 269,561,249,468,963,094,528

https://xkcd.com/936/

You're wrong. Hilariously so.

The entropy of "thatswhatshesaid" is far lower than 43,608,742,899,428,874,059,776. Randall Munroe calculated correctly in the XKCD comic, of course. He didn't assume that each letter was random, he assumed he was choosing four words at random from a dictionary of a specific size (about 2048 entries == ~11 bits of entropy per word). Your password is clearly not a selection of randomly-chosen words, and even if it were, it would likely have been from a much smaller dictionary.

This highlights the danger of asking users to pick passwords... even those who think they know what they're doing are likely to screw it up. Munroe's advice in 936 was good... but I think it has mislead more people than it has enlightened.

No, it's much better to use a password manager and let a computer pick large random passwords for you.

Comment Re:But... but? (Score 1) 120 120

LOL ... who the hell still has access to usenet feeds?

I mean, sure, who doesn't have fond memories of concatenating files and then uudecoding them to discover what you'd downloaded? Or the horror of discovering the horse porn.

But the last time I saw anything with access to the usenet feeds was a long time ago. I'm sure they exist, but would most people even have access to them any more?

I can honestly say I've seen some of the sickest stuff of my life on usenet. And I can also say I've not seen usenet in around a decade.

"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."

Working...