I hope your sarcasm is understood, it's a dangerous technique to use on the internet.

However, there's an interesting twist to the pcode vs. native code dichotomy, from reverse engineering standpoint, as anyone who's well versed in the brain-mangling line noise that calls itself the IOCCC will know. One of the best obfuscations is to embed an interpreter into your code, and then do all the hard work in the bytecode.

Reading the paper, googling for the debug hash, lead to this from 2012 which covers a lot of the same ground:

http://archive.hack.lu/2012/Dropbox%20security.pptx
"A critical analysis of Dropbox software security", Florian LEDOUX

Sounds remarkably like security through obscurity to me. With the predictable outcome.

You have no right to feel secure if you only think you're secure assuming noone else examines your source code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle

I can't find a reference to it now, but I'm pretty sure that possession of a London map has been considered as evidence that you might be a terrorist.

False. Things which were true in the past, but not now, are false. He is not a top ranking policeman any more than George Bush is the US president.

For reference, he's the cunt who tried to prevent an investigation into the shooting of an innocent Brazillian electrician in cold blood by his poorly-trained (but apparently the best you've got) underlings who thought he was a middle-eastern terrorist bomber.

Everything this man says about secrets is tainted. He's Captain Coverup.

> Terrorists are a sometimes-maybe-sorta threat. Government is much more terrifying because it is always there protecting itself rather than its citizens.

And have you compared their funding? Orders of magnitude difference. In addition, one of them throws you in prison if you *don't* fund them. More civilised than kneecapping, but ultimately not much different.

At some point you're going to realise that the "love it or leave it" loons are actually right, and you should leave it.

When I was a young kid, and I first heard "literally", I presumed it was something to do with "literature", stuff like Harper Lee or Shakespeare - i.e *fiction*. It must have taken years before I actually checked its dictionary meaning (its literal meaning, one might say), and had quite a shock. Now, every time I see someone "misuse" the word, I initially think "no it wasn't, you're exaggerating ", and then think back and mellow to a "well, you might imagine a diarist (or journalist) writing that" stance, and let it pass. Language changes; this isn't the grossest perversion of the language that I've seen.

Have some respect, that's your government you're insulting! http://geke.us/GS.html

(OT - And incidentally, in case anyone interprets my .sig as being anti-Obama, I first set it while Bush was in power, and just never got round to changing it. For obvious reasons.)

Because your code is more fragile to misrendering or mistransmission by Slashdot, and MS Exchange, and yahoogroups, and google groups, and ...

The answer to your question was in your parent post, did you not see it?

Fuck ~= vittu, literally cunt, from Swedish fitta

Perkele's harder to translate into English, being the name of an pagan god. So you'd probably want it to be something that offends Church of England sensibilities through blasphemy. I can't think of anything apart from "Hell!" that fits that description at the moment, but that's not really any good as the Finns have "Helvetti" for precisely that meaning. I'm not sure how much the Finns distinguish "perkele" from "saatana" = "satan". It's worth asking a Finn.

What? He's already used up all the words in the English language, he's had to resort to Finnish to fill the gaps already: http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/13/132

Erm...
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/13/07/15/1530233/linux-311-officially-named-linux-for-workgroups

See with your own eyes:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Makefile

What does "received $1.5 billion in benefits" *mean*?

It doesn't sound like profit to me, as there's a better word for that, namely "profit". And that's the thing I think RoI should be calculated from (as do economists, it's rare that I agree with them on anything).

> Less than a day's worth of military funding, I'm sure.

Very good point. One should always seek to optimise the largest wastes, and the military is an enormous sink-hole. Except if you're one of the lucky industrial parts of the military industrial complex, that is, in which case, it's Christmas every day!

However, that doesn't mean one should throw money willy0nilly at any fancy-pants futuristic scheme that follows the current fashion, as ...

> And this is not an expenditure, it's an investment.

Only if it pays off. What are your estimates as to the probability this will be both workable, and cost-effective?

> Now add cooling, power, generators, physical security, a SAN, a virtualization platform, and multiple failover sites.

6 of those things we've been doing all along anyway (OK, we non zed-heads have only been virtualising for half a decade). The remaining one AWS doesn't do for you unless you pay significantly more than the simple hosting service.