Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

## Comment Re:Great Title (Score 1)90

These nice math people solved a big problem! People had tried to figure it out for gosh, fifty years! Then they did it. The problem was like if you had lots of apple orchards, each with different apples. Birds would fly over and poop on them sometimes. You wanted to find out which birds were pooping on what trees and also which apples on which branches were clean, and all this, over a period of time in which orchards. Tough, huh?

## Comment Re:Great Title (Score 5, Interesting)90

They describe how. Five different, round-about ways of deriving positive intersecting matrices are described. They develop a method of defining boundary equations for the matrices, so as to prove an interesting algorithm that hadn't been able to be solved via an algorithm, just conjectures. They define this interesting boundary equation to box-in the conjectures, so to speak, and by defining the algorithmic domain, offer a proof that it works.

Profit!

I'm not sure how just yet.... but Profit!

If someone else can explain it succinctly, give it a shot.

## Comment Re:I don't think we're debating the law here (Score 1)145

Many variables here, including whose context you're speaking from, e.g. the government, the opposition, or others. The classicist view becomes increasingly meaningless, as much is the result of SCOTUS precedent, if/where available.

With no explicit right to privacy, and the other amendments including the 14th, encryption is vulnerable in terms of mentality. Where a court order exists, and doesn't violate the 5th, I see the mandate to turn over keys. Lacking that, I'm in favor of co--opting memes, like conflating gun rights to privacy rights, as both aren't necessarily explicit, except in the hearts of liberty.

## Comment Re:The trouble is they're right (Score 1)145

How dare you use facts to get in the way of a good meme.

However, that same Constitution allows you to also be allowed Free Speech (First Amendment) making your encrypted speech still yours in freedom.

Then there's that pesky Fourth Amendment which requires security, as in "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" including the ability to reveal your assets, which I'll cover next.

Ok, head-desk time, that old Fifth Amendment, which among other things, "nor shall (you) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

So is there a tie? Yes, it's called The Bill of Rights and its aim is freedom and liberty.

## Comment Re:The hilarity it keeps growing. (Score 4, Insightful)259

Perhaps it was more like this:

Ostensibly erudite reporter was given inside information with the carefully planted bugaboo word: encryption, so as to allow the information provider to cast a negative shadow upon encryption, so as to favor the arguments of those tireless government officials that are seeking to permit governmental backdoors into encryption methods.

Or, perhaps more likely, the erudite reporter merely salted their story for street creds.

In either case, it was seemingly rapidly corrected.

## Comment Re:Nailed it (Score 1)291

No, this is a fundamental and profound difference: safety comes first, not as a feature, It's an immature view not to consider safety as fundamental.

## Comment Re:Linus isn't trying to make it black and white. (Score 1)291

People in this thread mistake that I believe in draconian security. I don't. I do, however have the facts that systems security is taking a beating like no other time in history, and the assets at stake are now huge. To blow off security as an after thought of some sort of da Vinci-worthy code still strikes me as the height of arrogance. It doesn't speak to the real pain that occurs.

## Comment Re:Linus isn't trying to make it black and white. (Score 2)291

Never said IT was a monolith. I fully appreciate the many responsibilities, many are now heavily distracted by the fireman's drill of dealing with security issues.

Security is indeed a process, but insufficiently applied as a discipline across IT-- including coders, viz the incredible breaches across industries, governments, and personal equipment. It's now slowing down, it's become vastly more damaging.

## Comment Re:Nailed it (Score 1)291

Underscoring your reply was a theme of trade-offs. Some people want to live a life with minimal patches, because the code was right to begin with, and withstood barrages of overflow/etc attempts because the code was well-designed, and used as one of the pragmas for its underlying theme: security.

Coders aren't getting message that security comes first. Sure, take an idea and make it into code. And if you're going to distribute that code, prevent others from coming to harm. This is the theme, this is the culture that's missing in Torvald's quote.

## Comment Re:Nailed it (Score 1)291

I'm fully aware of kernel functionality. "Imaginary" security problems become discovered often. Linux is not just the kernel, it's also all of the apps depending on kernel functionality. Yes, it's FOSS and the kernel is freaking huge, a life's work of astounding achievement.

Your pragmatist's instructions are great. This said, allowing a carefully crafted packet to push a process into an overflow that permits privileged code execution is a hideous failure. Suddenly, a machine is cracked like an egg, and rife for code injection that renders whatever real assets in use for ripoff.

Yes, things get fixed. Fewer things get fixed when code is well thought-through as a matter of innate discipline as a function of a culture of being inherently security-mindful. Such statements by Torvalds say: loose and fast is ok. We're engineers and have more meaningful things to do as our goals. Therein lies my problem with it.

## Comment Re:Nailed it (Score 1)291

If you're a real hacker, you should be immune to this kind of binary thinking. People hack stuff, and look at the damage now done given criminal motives. Nothing is foolproof, but security is a culture, a mindset. It's nice to make something nice and artistic, but if it melts like an ice sculpture, what's left?

## Comment Re:Nailed it (Score 1, Insightful)291

It's not about Microsoft. It's about Lucky Linus not getting the message, being arrogant, and permeating a culture where loose-and-fast is better than thinking of security risks.

"I've seen the forgeries I've sent out." -- John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US), about forging net news articles

Working...