Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Let me rephrase that quesion (Score 1) 62 62

But it would be nice if we could somehow rewind back to the 80s in which every computer came with a simple programming language so that if I wanted to throw together some code to do a simple task for my own benefit, I could do so quickly and easily.

I think they do though ... VBA? :)

Comment Re:Why not have mechanical security too? (Score 1) 141 141

Your objections are just a matter of software for an ATM customized for this application. Except the one about ATMs not able to count money. Huh? You can put a stack of cash in the thing and it will count the money including identifying the denominations.

Comment Re:Pfft! (Score 1) 49 49

A compromise on the length argument is a registration fee, that is exponential. So, having copyright for a year might be a buck or two. Having it for 5 years might be a few hundred. Having it for 10 might be a few million. Having it for 15 might start to go into the billions range. That can obviously be tuned and tweaked. The point is that copyright is a public sacrifice and should be done for public benefit. Companies can decide how valuable that renewal is and let it go or buy in.

Comment Re:Not to be taken seriously (Score 1) 100 100

I didn't say it was proven. I said it was a result. We don't have a formal proof that P != NP, but find me a single practitioner who thinks we'll find a proof of P = NP.

At some level math works on the basis of consensus. Consensus determines whether we accept a proof or reject it for omitting an important step; consensus determines which axioms we accept to be true. And so far, the consensus seems to be "BQP != NP, just like P != NP."

But yes, we're going to keep looking for the proofs. :)

Comment Re:Not to be taken seriously (Score 1) 100 100

Depends on what you mean by proven. It's believed about as strongly as people believe P != NP. There's zero evidence BQP can address NP-Complete (or, for that matter, even interesting parts of NP), and a lot of good reasons to believe it can't. However, a proof has been as elusive as the P != NP proof -- another thing which pretty much every CS nerd agrees to be true, but it hasn't been rigorously proven yet.

Comment Re:OpenID Connect scales at O(n^2) (Score 1) 357 357

Trial and error, I expect. Look at what other sites do. I realize that this isn't a very good answer. There isn't a good answer, just bad answers that are still better than passwords. Classic OpenID isn't the answer because users don't know how to use it and many RPs don't trust random providers. But as a practical matter providing login with, say, Google, Facebook, Yahoo and AOL will give better than 95% of your users the ability to log on with better security than the password-based model you'd build, and do it just by clicking a couple of buttons.

If you find that your user base tends to have an account with some other provider (no, I can't tell you how to find out who your users are or what they use), then add that.

How much net work could a network work, if a network could net work?