Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: We need to run debian directly on phones! (Score 1) 194

by anwyn (#46486717) Attached to: Google Blocking Asus's Android-Windows "Duet"?
We need to get rid of both android and microsoft on our phones. We should be able to run any package in debian's massive repositories. Down with app stores. Up with repositories.

We need to circumvent any charming little backdoors on the modem like the replicant people just discovered. We need to run end-to-end encryption on our phones, without fear of backdoors and NSLs!

A free operating system like GNU/Linux on our phones is our only hope for security.

Comment: An analogous religious paradox. (Score 1) 745

by anwyn (#46262453) Attached to: Mathematician: Is Our Universe a Simulation?
Many people believe that the universe was created by a creator who was omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

I do not believe this, but many people do, so let us take this as an hypothesis and see where it goes.

Such a creator would have had to had a perfect understanding of each alternate universe that he declined to create. The creator would understand the complete history of all beings and objects down to the minutest quantum detail. This is required by the creator's omniscience. The creator would consider all universes which are internally consistent, that is all universes that seem to obey their own laws without flaw. The hypothetical creatures of these internally consistent universes would have no way of determining that they were in an alternate, not chosen for creation universe. This is because of the perfection of the creator's understanding, or if you want to put it that way, the perfection of the creator's "simulation" of alternate universes in the creator's perfect thought.

So the bottom line: you may believe that God created a perfect Universe, but you have no way of knowing that you are in the perfect Universe that God created. For all you know, you are a part of a alternate turd universe that God declined to create.

Of course it is absurd, but refute it if you can, I won't. Many would argue it no more absurd that the original hypothesis.

Comment: My PI serves random numbers on my lan. (Score 5, Interesting) 246

by anwyn (#45451459) Attached to: Raspberry Pi Hits the 2 Million Mark
Some computers much more expensive than the PI do not have a Hardware RNG built in. Both my intel desktop and my laptop don't have a hardware RNG. If you try to generate a key, these computers will stop while gathering entropy. But not any more. I use my pi to dump random numbers into the entropy pools for all my computers that don't have an RNG.

There are other hardware RNGs available, but none as inexpensive as a PI. Also because the PI has an RJ45 connection, it can be plugged into my router where it can serve random numbers for all computers on my lan.

Comment: Evolveablity could be a disadvantage! (Score 1) 72

by anwyn (#45436917) Attached to: First Lab Demonstration That the Ability To Evolve Can Itself Evolve
It is easy to imagine a scenario where evolveablity is a long term selective disadvantage. Imagine a species with certain traits that allow it to survive a catastrophe that occurs infrequently. However these traits are dead weight during the good times (=most of the time). If the creature evolves to fast, it will lose all its catastrophe surviving traits during the good times and and get wiped out during a catastrophe. However if it evolves slowly these traits will survive the catastrophe and culling during the catastrophes will insure it keeps its catastrophe surviving traits. And perhaps the characteristic of slow evolution.

+ - John Gilmore analyzes NSA obstruction of crypto in IPSPEC.

Submitted by anwyn
anwyn (266338) writes "Long time civil libertarian and free software entrepreneur, In a recent article postend on the cryptography mailing list, long time civil libertarian and free software entrepreneur, John Gilmore has analyzed possible NSA obstruction of cryptography in IPSPEC.

He suggest that packet processing in the Linux kernel had been obstructed by one kernel developer. Gilmore suggests that the NSA has been plotting against strong cryptography on mobile phones:"

Comment: Snowden Assange WikiLeaks CA (Score 1) 276

by anwyn (#44373609) Attached to: Anonymous Source Claims Feds Demand Private SSL Keys From Web Services
They should set up their own CA in some country immune to US pressure. They would not have to do the actual signing. (Probably difficult due the current fishbowl they live in.) They could hire the people set policies put their logo on it. They could set it up so actual signing occurs anonymously in some unknown country.

Probably the only CA I would trust.

Comment: Coventry logic (Score 1) 407

by anwyn (#44165275) Attached to: NSA Backdoors In Open Source and Open Standards: What Are the Odds?
I think that ordinary people using crypto for ordinary purposes, the NSA's crypto abilities are irrelevant. Ordinary people are protected by "Coventry logic". Yes, I am aware there is a controversy concerning whether the Coventry story actually happened. It does not matter. "Coventry logic" remains valid.

If an important commonly used crypto program like gpg or ssl were broken by the NSA's mathematicians, it would be a secret of the highest order. Any use of the secret tends to reveal the secret. Therefore the secret can only be used for national business of the highest importance. Most people's secrets are just not that important, even if they involve matters that the federal government does not like. Thus most ordinary people are protected as free riders. This is "Coventry logic".

It is for this reason that the NSA's abilities should not be probed. If some investigative people probed the NSA's abilities, with fake messages about fake plots and that scheme worked, it could remove the "coventry logic" protection that millions of people now currently enjoy. If an important secret were forced out, then why not use the secret? Thus it is in no one's interest, other than the genuine malefactors, that this type of secret be probed. Everyone else has an interest in strategic ambiguity.

Comment: compression, spread spectrum (Score 1) 197

by anwyn (#42831875) Attached to: No Transmitting Aliens Detected In Kepler SETI Search
The more a signal is compressed, the more it looks like random noise. The only way you know the difference between a signal and random noise is redundancies. But redundancies represent an opportunity to save power and bandwidth, by adding compression.

The typical alien civilization has had hundreds of thousands of years to work out compression algorithms.

On top of this, spread spectrum might be used.

So what makes anyone think that SETI or anyone else would be capable of recognizing an alien signal if they saw one?

The fact that people are trying to draw conclusions from this failure, is a sign only of colossal human arrogance.

Comment: GPL Breaks this process. (Score 5, Insightful) 227

by anwyn (#42747149) Attached to: Microsoft Embraces Git For Development Tools
The GPL restricts the "Extend" step so that Discontinue step is impossible.

Any derived work of something, like git, which is GPLed, must be GPLed. That means that if you fork, the main branch, the main branch is free to use your extensions. This makes it difficult for replacement to work.

Furthermore, if you try discontinue step, others are free to fork and continue. So discontinue does not work.

The GPL completely breaks the "Embrace. Step 2: Extend. Step 3: Replace. Step 4: Discontinue." process. Which is why it is hated.

Small is beautiful.

Working...