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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Waaaahhhhh!! (Score 2) 686

You are incorrect.

Did Linus say, "I hope you eat dicks and die you fag?"

Did Linus say, "You're a shit programmer for thinking up something like this?"

Did Linus say, "Go to hell you moron?"

No. He did not personally insult the developer in any way. He made a rude comment about a company -- which doesn't have feelings -- to get his point across. The poster of that patch has no reason to be personally offended. The comment was about his work, not him as a human being.

Comment Re:Racism v. Bias v. Intelligence (Score 1) 445

For a while, until those differences are eroded by attrition over generations. Lots of Irish were brought over as indentured servants. Huge disadvantage. But that was >200 years ago, no one cares now, and no one should care because it worked itself out.

Here's another idea. How about we work on trying to help and help motivate gifted students whose parents, for whatever reason, are not involved in their lives? I don't care if it's a black child or a white child or a Hispanic child or an Asian child: try to help any child who is underperforming due to lack of parental involvement.

There's no reason we need to specifically target black children or Hispanic children with absentee parents. That's just a proxy for "kids who aren't doing as well as they should because their parents are poor / don't care / whatever". And using race as a proxy for some other characteristic is racist.

Comment Re:Is a usable quantum machine possible? (Score 1) 113

lol, wow. Okay, I'll spell it out.

My objection is to your assertion that acting as if no current cryptography will be safe in 10 years has no cost. If you really act that way, it will cost you quite a lot. You will be unable to take actions you would otherwise be able to take, because, for instance, you have to assume anything you transmit over the Internet, even if you encrypt it, can be intercepted and later read.

Separately, you're also wrong that there is cause to act in such a way, because quantum annealing (the process used to factor 56,153) isn't Shor's Algorithm, doesn't work in the general case, and might not even provide a speedup over classical factorization techniques. It's a parlor trick.

But my objection was to the other part of your risk assessment -- the part that led you to suggest that acting like all crypto is broken has no cost.

Comment Re:Don't worry (Score 1) 113

And we'll never find the Philosopher's Stone.
And astrology won't tell you your future.
And bloodletting isn't going to cure your plague.
And we'll never discover the Fountain of Youth.
And she's not a witch.
And your child isn't a changeling.
And the Northwest Passage doesn't exist. (Maybe it will one day if we keep turning up the planet's thermostat, but it certainly didn't when we were looking for it.)

And Reagan's Star Wars was a joke.

And you're not getting headaches because of the WiFi.

And Moore's Law won't continue forever; eventually physics will bite us. (It actually already has.)

And there are enough fundamental problems with building a practical quantum computer that Shor's Algorithm will in all probability never be more than a theoretical curiosity.

Maybe the final one is true; maybe not. Everything I've read says that quantum decoherence is really hard to avoid, and adiabatic quantum computers can't do Shor's Algorithm. In any case, you haven't made an argument.

Comment Re:Is a usable quantum machine possible? (Score 1) 113

I'm never going to go outside on Fridays anymore because I think a toilet seat from outer space is going to crash into my head and kill me if I do.

If I'm wrong, no harm done.


(not saying quantum crypto is a movie plot threat, merely another form of dumb -- DLM just worked best for the joke analogy)

Comment Re:Comment (Score 1) 284

You can reject it all you'd like. You can reject that the color of the night sky is black and argue that it is white too, but the fact remains otherwise.

That's cute, but you're missing something big. He can reject your definitions if he wants to, and, as long as he's consistent with his own definitions, he has the right to do that.

I can call the night sky white if I want to -- just so long as I don't also call my printer paper white. If I do both of those things, then and only then can you complain.


Comment Re:Folding@Home (Score 2) 82

Are you sure? I've been to China multiple times. Some observations:
- OpenVPN connections are killed at the handshake. Workaround is hide the handshake; there are multiple ways to do this.
- SSH (allows tunneling) worked fine when I was there this summer. One time, in 2014, it seemed to degrade over time. But this probably was just been my imagination, because of the following:

CHINA'S INTERNATIONAL PEERING SUCKS ASS. It doesn't matter if you have a T1 at home: international connections are going to be slow as molasses. A lot of people say China "degrades VPNs", but my observation is more that the country just has bad peering to other countries. You can get fast domestic Internet access, but international sites and servers -- the ones that aren't blocked -- are going to be slow and unreliable, because the upstream peering is running at something like 200% capacity, and your packets are going to get frequently dropped.

Now, an interesting question is whether their international peering sucks on purpose as an extension of their censorship. Maybe, maybe not. Whatever the case, you can get an uncensored proxy out very easily, but expect some slowness and unpleasantness. Not because they're using some super-duper magic proxy-degrading technology, though. That's probably not happening. If they catch you, they'll probably just cut you off, not slow you down. What's probably happening is that China's international peering sucks, and you're running into the congestion.

Comment Re: How about "no"? (Score 1) 728

No, Gumbercules. I don't now about Australia, but the vast majority of US criminal laws do not apply extraterritorially. It's not just that the US doesn't bother prosecuting people who use drugs outside of the US; they couldn't even if they wanted to. US law applies in US territory, and not elsewhere, except in certain limited cases.

One exception I'm aware of is that US citizens or permanent residents who have sex with child prostitutes in other countries can be tried in the US, and most likely treason or similar crimes would apply to US citizens overseas, but that's me speculating.

However, almost all other US laws apply only in the US. Extraterritorial laws are the rare exception and not the rule. If you smoke pot in Amsterdam, that's between you and Amsterdam. If you are 18 and get drunk in Puerto Rico (where it is legal), your home state won't go after you.

And, taken to the extreme, even serious crimes like murder are typically only crimes under the jurisdiction in which the murder occurs. If you go kill someone in Mexico, it's Mexico whose law you have violated and Mexico who will punish you. Now, if you go to the US after murdering someone in Mexico, the US will arrest you and send you to Mexico to face justice under Mexico's laws -- but only if Mexico asks. Extradition is not the same as extraterritorial application of law.

Here's a document with information on US extraterritorial application of law, considering it from constitutional, statutory, international law, and lots of other perspectives. Piracy (real piracy; guys on ships with guns or other "stateless vessels") is an extraterritorial application of law that had slipped my mind in my first comment. A few other cases seem to be things like, if you kill the President (or another high-ranking federal official) when he's in Japan, the US will have some beef with you even if Japan doesn't care. But these tend to be limited. Also, it's almost all federal criminal laws that apply extraterritorially; state criminal laws (which are the vast majority of criminal laws in the US) almost never do.

Comment Re: How about "no"? (Score 1) 728

That's more than a little messed up, and the US does not follow Australia's example on this, with the sole example (afaik -- maybe not sole but if not there are VERY few others) of hiring overseas child prostitutes. If you go to Amsterdam and get high, the US won't lock you up when you come back.

And that's as it should be: applying laws to your citizens when they're not in your territory is a problematic concept. You can be a citizen of a country without even knowing it, for a recent example Ted Cruz was a dual Canadian citizen from birth until very recently when he renounced his citizenship, and he didn't know he was until some members of the press discovered it when he started campaigning for President.

Comment Re:Laugh (Score 1) 192

It's a hard problem. My only contention is that the solution is not "do the recall only if we expect lawsuits would cost more". Some people affected wouldn't know to file suit, the victims' lawyers would take a cut of the proceeds, human life is impossible to value monetarily and attempts to do so necessarily fall short, etc.

We have regulatory agencies which sometimes force car companies to initiate recalls. They are the ones ultimately in charge of making that judgement call. That seems to me to be a reasonable approach.

Comment Re:Laugh (Score 1) 192

That's a good point.

However, there's a difference between inevitable engineering tolerance failures and flaws in the design or construction. If there's a known flaw in the vehicle's construction, because the wrong materials were used, etc., and the company doesn't initiate a recall because they think they can "get away with it" and have to pay less by not doing the recall, that's different, and many could consider that sociopathic/evil.

Real Programmers think better when playing Adventure or Rogue.