... says Anonymous Coward

Understanding primes is fundamental to an understanding of number theory.

Number theory itself is pure mathematics, which concerns itself with abstract concepts, so the immediate motivation is one of exercising our intelligence and playing with the puzzles that we discover. "Intellectual masturbation", to use your classy phrase, is fun. You should try it sometime.

But of course, in turn number theory underpins many other areas of mathematics, including for example the discrete mathematics used in the development of computer algorithms, not to mention the numerical analysis we use in engineering.

You seem to be making the mistake of thinking that research is best directed according to practical goals. Actually, it is more time effective to solve hard and fundamental problems that have general usefulness in the field than it is to pick off application specific tasks that won't have any relevance beyond next year.

Of course, there has to be a balance here between general and specific. But since the number of people doing pure research is such a small fraction of the population, it is really up to you to justify why we don't have more people studying these matters.

Ah, here we go again. The myth that technology and technological standards can be politically neutral. A convenient myth, since it we can then absolve ourselves from any responsibility for how that technology is used.

let me guess, you're running Debian stable?

• obscurity - "not well known"
• secrecy - "concealed or hidden"

So a password is a secret, not an obscurity, and is not sent across the communications channel.

"security through obscurity" usually refers to obscuring the design of a system, not to key secrecy. Unlike design obscurity, secret keys provide a measurable barrier to brute force attacks.

Changing port number for ssh is interesting to classify. If chosen it randomly for each system being set up, it could be argued that it wasn't a design obscurity. But it doesn't add to the total security against a targeted attack, because the port number can be determined prior to key forcing (and in a lot shorter time). Also, the port number is not secret, in the sense that it is sent in clear text across the network when the real user logs in.

Of course, changing port number may have practical advantages (reducing traffic, simplifying logs). But it isn't a security strategy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo

The reason it was noticed on Linux is because a portion of this UEFI space is being used to keep a non-volatile copy of the most recent kernel log messages (so that on a crash event, it is easier to find out what happened).

Why should someone need an Apple developer account to code the device that they own? How is that a general purpose computing device? It's not about the money, it's about all the strings attached. I can program my microwave oven if I really wanted to, but the manufacturer did not intend for me to do so. Apple is mighty close to having the same attitude towards its clients; it intends them to be consumers, not creators. So they forfeit the right to describe their fashion items as computers.

Yes, Turbo Pascal wasn't sophisticated, but on CP/M it was a game changer. I bought a copy in 1984, because the alternative was Pascal/MT. MT was excruciatingly slow (taking something like 9 passes over the file, which was of course being read from a floppy on each pass). Because Turbo was all in one, the whole thing could run out of memory, which took the edit/compile/test process down from minutes to seconds.

The issue here is not whether all genetic modification is safe, it is about the misleading reporting of a scientific article. The scientific community do have ethical concerns about safety, which is why such studies are performed in the first place.

In this particular instance, they were screening for toxins that could be produced in error by a sequence. In the particular gene they were looking at (one commonly used to promote expression of proteins for another inserted gene), they couldn't find any. This doesn't automatically make it safe, but it rules out a set of potential issues.

And remember, such allergens/toxins can be produced in non-modified organisms, which is why we even know about them in the first place.

Have you read the Pirate Party's submission regarding copyright review, or their submission regarding patent reform? Do you have specific points of disagreement other than just implying that it is not sensible?

Canberra. No one knows why anyone would want to live there.

Are you really claiming that a computer being run by Los Alamos and called Trinity is primarily going to be used for alternative energy?

Exactly; the only Skype API that is "open" is the scripting interface to the proprietary client software; not to the Skype network itself.