There you go again. You have just illustrated a very real difference, and made my point for me.
You have been told many times that I am not a "sky dragon slayer". Whether I might have been once, in your opinion, is another matter. But you talk about years ago as though it were today, in precisely the calculated way that would give someone else the wrong impression.
That's dishonest. UNlike an honest mistake, it's a form of deliberate lying.
I am not (and have not been) the liar here, you are. You might try to excuse yourself for that in many different ways, but it hasn't worked.
Because so many people mis-understood my comment (in several seemingly very creative ways), I will clarify what I meant.
I didn't say you should roll your own. I agree that would be dumb. I didn't mean to imply that you had to know every aspect of every bit of math going on in an encryption algorithm, but you should have at least some grasp of the basics.
The reason I chose bcrypt as an example is because though it is based on Blowfish, it has not been shown rigorously that the additional key-generation rounds it is using to increase decryption time does not weaken the underlying encryption in any way. It seems like a reasonable conclusion, but reasonable is often not enough in encryption, as history has shown us quite often. The only real assurance we have that bcrypt's key-generation doesn't weaken the underlying encryption is that the developers said they "hope" it doesn't, in their original white paper. Hope is not a good measure to use for encryption.
On the other hand, there is PBKDF2, which has pretty much all the advantages of bcrypt, but unlike bcrypt has been fully security-audited.
My main point about the math was just that you should have a good idea of the relative "strength" of the algorithm vs today's computing power, and a basic idea of how it works. But there there are things like: how do I figure out how many bytes my salt should be? Etc.
Not rocket science. But it's not all 6th-grade math either.
Well, my comment has been so much misunderstood, I cannot help but think I could have worded it more clearly. I didn't mean what you seem to think I meant. Even so, THIS:
As someone who works in the infosec industry, the fact this comment is rated +5 Informative fills me with panic. Yes, you should absolutely take someone else's word for it, specifically you should take NIST's word for it.
... is such utterly wrong, complete bullshit, I hardly know where to start.
You're referring to the same NIST that tried to foist Clipper Chip and Skipjack on a mostly-unknowing public in the early 90s? And planned to continue with the plan even though 80,000 negative comments were received during the public comment period, and a mere handful of positive comments? The same Skipjack that was later shown to have serious flaws?
Or, let's see... wasn't that the same NIST that has been implicated in trying to push a compromised form of elliptical-curve key generation on the businesses and public of the US?
That NIST?
It is to laugh.
No, people should listen to private-sector experts, and not listen to the Government at all, or at least take what it says with a grain of salt the size of a basketball.
In other words, any web developer who has not worked through their own proof of the Fermat-Euler theorum is not qualified to call themselves a good programmer.
You people seem to have some very creative forms of reading -- um -- "comprehension". I didn't write that and I didn't mean that.
I wasn't trying to imply that you necessarily had to know how elliptical curves apply to public-key cryptography. But you should have a good understanding of key length vs brute-force time, or whether the method being used is vulnerable to rainbow tables, etc. That does require a bit of math. Not PhD level, by any means.
You're totally wrong. Only complete idiots or actual cryptographers roll their own.
I think you need to read my comment again. I didn't write ANYTHING about "rolling your own". I just wrote that you should have at least some knowledge of how it works.
Indeed. You can be a good programmer in most sub-fields without having a good grasp of multi-variate calculus, but you will never be a good programmer without at least some decent math skills.
You might do okay at coding web sites. But even then: if you don't understand how the encryption works, how do you know what method to use for encrypting the passwords on your website. Should you just take someone's word for it? (Answer: no. And yet that's how bcrypt became popular.)
Armed robbery includes any deadly weapon brandished as threat of force during the robbery, not just firearms.
Do you understand what "enhancements" are? In some states, using a firearm specifically will result in an "enhancement" to your sentence if found guilty. It's the same crime (armed robbery), but carries a stiffer sentence if thw weapon happens to be a firearm.
Killing (even accidentally) in the commission of a felony is usually considered murder, so planning to kill in commission of a felony is like planning to murder.
As I have pointed out to you many times, there is a world of difference between making statements you have reason to believe are true, and your brand of dishonest character assassination attempts.
unless of course you're terrified of computers and networks, view them as tantamount to witchcraft, don't understand them, and hate and fear anyone who does. Then of course, by all means, grab your torch and pitchfork. The rest of the loonies will be waiting in the town square at midnight.
It's the whole "enhancement" idea in the law that is just so much hogwash.
Why was the crime "worse" because a computer was used? Did the victim suffer more? Was there more physical damage?
In the same vein, why does an armed robbery in many states carry an "enhanced" sentence, or even become a different crime, because a gun was used? Would a crossbow or a big knife have been any different? They're all deadly weapons.
"Enhancements" like these are an expression of fear and attempted control. It's not a matter of justice, it's a matter of trying to control people. Plain and simple.
Just so we're clear, here is a statement from an attorney about this habit of yours. You can find the same information in many places:
Putting a question mark at the end of a statement when it's meant to be a statement can still lead to liability.
Also, from a law school:
Defamatory statements can come in the form of questions as well, especially if the question implies certain facts about the person who is being questioned. For example:
A radio DJ, during an interview, asks his guest âoewhen did you stop beating your wifeâ? This question carries the implication that the guest has been beating his wife. Thus, there is a defamatory implication to the question and the guest may have a viable cause of action against the radio DJ.
Your long history of making statements similar to the one you made above, some with question marks and some without, has made your intent very clear. You don't get a pass just because you put a "?" at the end of a defamatory sentence.
Just so we're clear, this is a statement from an attorney about this habit of yours. You can find the same information in many places:
Putting a question mark at the end of a statement when it's clear that it's meant to be a statement can still lead to liability.
Your history of making similar statements with question marks makes it very clear what your intent is. You don't get a pass just because you put a "?" at the end of a defamatory sentence.
So you deny saying that women would be able to "control your behavior" and "decide whether or not you are a criminal" unless we legalize up-skirt panty shots?
Of course I do. Again with your distortions. You have extracted different portions of a discussion about the law, and inappropriately pasted them together to create a meaning I did not write or intend.
Yes, I do deny saying that, because I didn't say that. Knock off the lies and defamatory statements. They are no less defamatory posed as questions. You really don't know how that works, do you?
So you deny fantasizing about fucking "hot guys" and sharing news about women in the locker room?
As I have pointed out many times before, you like to deliberately distort and misrepresent other peoples' comments out of context.
That's called libel, and that comment of yours is a great example of it, since a reasonable person could not possibly interpret the words in the way you put them together. Putting them in the form of a question does not by itself absolve you of guilt, since it is obvious your purpose is defamation. (Even if this instance were not obvious, your recorded pattern of behavior makes it so.)
Society has rules, you know, even if Slashdot is lax about enforcing them.
By that logic we should just write off large swathes of the Netherlands.
That doesn't follow. The Netherlands don't have a choice. We do.
Dykes and berms work just fine, and we have the engineering means to keep portions of land we consider valuable dry even if the waters rise 10 or 20 feet.
That also doesn't follow. The dyke and berm system in New Orleans was being "shored up" using local, State, and Federal money, yet "somehow" a very large part of the money mysteriously ended up elsewhere, and not spent on building or maintaining dykes and berms.
The engineering and technology do work just fine... but the "system" of dykes and berms did not.
People exchanged something for value. It's a market.
The rest is ideology.
Utter nonsense.
Non-monetary iterms in a "market" have value because they're actually USEFUL for something... either in making something else, or turning into something else, or making your manufacturing operation more efficient, etc. That's what GIVES them value.
Carbon offsets are only "valuable" because Government says so. In that way they are like fiat money... almost useless in themselves, only useful for trading for other things.
So it's not a "market" it's government fiat, and it makes no sense to say it has values because it's a market. It isn't. Certainly not a free market, anyway.
And as an analogy to fiat money, Russia and Ukraine have already inflated it by "printing" money they didn't have.
Let me guess: you wanted to make all women look bad by acting out the worst sexist stereotypes of women, and wanted a more credible way to accuse women of being able to "control your behavior" and "decide whether or not you are a criminal" unless we legalize up-skirt panty shots?
Your "guesses" have been no better than your outright lies. Wrong on all counts.
And endlessly quoting yourself about past fabrications is... well... weird. Not that your other behavior has been exactly normal. You really do seem to live in your own little world. Which would be fine, if you just stayed there.
I think it's rather hilarious that you quote fantasies of your own that were previously shown to be wrong, to support your current fantasies. There's a name for that, too.
And thanks once again for confirming beyond doubt who you are. Icing on the cake.
Are you serious, Jane? Or are you just trying to play up your "batshit insane lunatic" cred by pretending that it's not sock-puppeting when you pretend to be a completely different person of a different gender, insisting that others call you "she", fantasizing about fucking "hot guys", and sharing news about women in the locker room isn't sock-puppeting?
WHO is batshit here?
Repeat: pseudonyms with longevity and character behind them are standard procedure on Slashdot. Sock-puppeting is not.
You have no idea what I fantasize about. You're coming off here as a complete loon. I mean serious nutcase. No apologies from here for saying that.
As per your usual habit, YOU are pretending, and projecting that behavior on others.
Or Jane/Lonny Eachus is the world's most blatant hypocrite. And since you're shamelessly bragging about being a good liar...
No, since you insist on bringing this up, let's revisit this. Because you will, just as hilariously as before, lose this one too.
You have often claimed I have been "pretending to be" a woman, mainly because I made a comment long ago that "most people who bothered to look" called me a gal. I let your snide comments slide for a long time, because I believe in giving people "enough rope".
When finally I felt it was no longer funny watching you thrash about lost in your own inanity, I deigned to explain that comment:
Yes, most people who bothered to look at the name "Jane Q. Public" have referred to me here on Slashdot as a gal. Why do you have such a problem with that?
You see, MOST people here on Slashdot ASSUME I am a "he"... and never even look at the handle to which they are replying. Which I find funny as hell, in a rather sad way. But those who DO bother to look -- the rarer cases -- are usually willing to accept it.
I have been planning on writing something about that.
You, however, look at ONLY the handle ("well, not 'only'...") and have been raising a stink about it for years now. It's a fucking pseudonym, twerp. Live with it.
Jane, you're shamelessly bragging about being a good liar.
What evidence do you have that my explanation is a lie? You already know the answer, so I'll tell everybody else: zero.
One of these days -- and there is even the possibility it will be in court -- I will tell you why I chose to use the pseudonym "Jane Q. Public". And when I do, there is a very good chance you will look pretty foolish. I am deliberately understating.
I believe in taking a long-term view of things. And lots and lots of rope.
*I* do not sock-puppet as "anonymous coward" on Slashdot. You've done it for years, and I would like to point out yet again that behavior is considered to be the lowest of the low around here.
Slashdot Mirror
There you go again. You have just illustrated a very real difference, and made my point for me.
You have been told many times that I am not a "sky dragon slayer". Whether I might have been once, in your opinion, is another matter. But you talk about years ago as though it were today, in precisely the calculated way that would give someone else the wrong impression.
That's dishonest. UNlike an honest mistake, it's a form of deliberate lying.
I am not (and have not been) the liar here, you are. You might try to excuse yourself for that in many different ways, but it hasn't worked.
Because so many people mis-understood my comment (in several seemingly very creative ways), I will clarify what I meant.
I didn't say you should roll your own. I agree that would be dumb. I didn't mean to imply that you had to know every aspect of every bit of math going on in an encryption algorithm, but you should have at least some grasp of the basics.
The reason I chose bcrypt as an example is because though it is based on Blowfish, it has not been shown rigorously that the additional key-generation rounds it is using to increase decryption time does not weaken the underlying encryption in any way. It seems like a reasonable conclusion, but reasonable is often not enough in encryption, as history has shown us quite often. The only real assurance we have that bcrypt's key-generation doesn't weaken the underlying encryption is that the developers said they "hope" it doesn't, in their original white paper. Hope is not a good measure to use for encryption.
On the other hand, there is PBKDF2, which has pretty much all the advantages of bcrypt, but unlike bcrypt has been fully security-audited.
My main point about the math was just that you should have a good idea of the relative "strength" of the algorithm vs today's computing power, and a basic idea of how it works. But there there are things like: how do I figure out how many bytes my salt should be? Etc.
Not rocket science. But it's not all 6th-grade math either.
As someone who works in the infosec industry, the fact this comment is rated +5 Informative fills me with panic. Yes, you should absolutely take someone else's word for it, specifically you should take NIST's word for it.
... is such utterly wrong, complete bullshit, I hardly know where to start.
You're referring to the same NIST that tried to foist Clipper Chip and Skipjack on a mostly-unknowing public in the early 90s? And planned to continue with the plan even though 80,000 negative comments were received during the public comment period, and a mere handful of positive comments? The same Skipjack that was later shown to have serious flaws?
Or, let's see... wasn't that the same NIST that has been implicated in trying to push a compromised form of elliptical-curve key generation on the businesses and public of the US?
That NIST?
It is to laugh.
No, people should listen to private-sector experts, and not listen to the Government at all, or at least take what it says with a grain of salt the size of a basketball.
In other words, any web developer who has not worked through their own proof of the Fermat-Euler theorum is not qualified to call themselves a good programmer.
You people seem to have some very creative forms of reading -- um -- "comprehension". I didn't write that and I didn't mean that.
I wasn't trying to imply that you necessarily had to know how elliptical curves apply to public-key cryptography. But you should have a good understanding of key length vs brute-force time, or whether the method being used is vulnerable to rainbow tables, etc. That does require a bit of math. Not PhD level, by any means.
You're totally wrong. Only complete idiots or actual cryptographers roll their own.
I think you need to read my comment again. I didn't write ANYTHING about "rolling your own". I just wrote that you should have at least some knowledge of how it works.
Indeed. You can be a good programmer in most sub-fields without having a good grasp of multi-variate calculus, but you will never be a good programmer without at least some decent math skills.
You might do okay at coding web sites. But even then: if you don't understand how the encryption works, how do you know what method to use for encrypting the passwords on your website. Should you just take someone's word for it? (Answer: no. And yet that's how bcrypt became popular.)
Armed robbery includes any deadly weapon brandished as threat of force during the robbery, not just firearms.
Do you understand what "enhancements" are? In some states, using a firearm specifically will result in an "enhancement" to your sentence if found guilty. It's the same crime (armed robbery), but carries a stiffer sentence if thw weapon happens to be a firearm.
Killing (even accidentally) in the commission of a felony is usually considered murder, so planning to kill in commission of a felony is like planning to murder.
True, but irrelevant to the point being made.
They inflict grievous bodily harm, every time.
Nonsense. Where do you get these ideas?
MOST shooting victims today (some sources say as much as 90%) survive.
MOST knifing victims (some sources say as much as 90%) bleed out before help arrives.
Your irrational fears, based on faulty perceptions, are not a rational basis for making law.
A gun causes more suffering.
Compared to, say, nearly bleeding out from a knife wound? Getting your head bashed in with a baseball bat?
That's crazy. Irrational.
As usual, your contexts are missing.
As I have pointed out to you many times, there is a world of difference between making statements you have reason to believe are true, and your brand of dishonest character assassination attempts.
unless of course you're terrified of computers and networks, view them as tantamount to witchcraft, don't understand them, and hate and fear anyone who does. Then of course, by all means, grab your torch and pitchfork. The rest of the loonies will be waiting in the town square at midnight.
It's the whole "enhancement" idea in the law that is just so much hogwash.
Why was the crime "worse" because a computer was used? Did the victim suffer more? Was there more physical damage?
In the same vein, why does an armed robbery in many states carry an "enhanced" sentence, or even become a different crime, because a gun was used? Would a crossbow or a big knife have been any different? They're all deadly weapons.
"Enhancements" like these are an expression of fear and attempted control. It's not a matter of justice, it's a matter of trying to control people. Plain and simple.
Putting a question mark at the end of a statement when it's meant to be a statement can still lead to liability.
Also, from a law school:
Defamatory statements can come in the form of questions as well, especially if the question implies certain facts about the person who is being questioned. For example:
A radio DJ, during an interview, asks his guest âoewhen did you stop beating your wifeâ? This question carries the implication that the guest has been beating his wife. Thus, there is a defamatory implication to the question and the guest may have a viable cause of action against the radio DJ.
Your long history of making statements similar to the one you made above, some with question marks and some without, has made your intent very clear. You don't get a pass just because you put a "?" at the end of a defamatory sentence.
Putting a question mark at the end of a statement when it's clear that it's meant to be a statement can still lead to liability.
Your history of making similar statements with question marks makes it very clear what your intent is. You don't get a pass just because you put a "?" at the end of a defamatory sentence.
So you deny saying that women would be able to "control your behavior" and "decide whether or not you are a criminal" unless we legalize up-skirt panty shots?
Of course I do. Again with your distortions. You have extracted different portions of a discussion about the law, and inappropriately pasted them together to create a meaning I did not write or intend.
Yes, I do deny saying that, because I didn't say that. Knock off the lies and defamatory statements. They are no less defamatory posed as questions. You really don't know how that works, do you?
So you deny fantasizing about fucking "hot guys" and sharing news about women in the locker room?
As I have pointed out many times before, you like to deliberately distort and misrepresent other peoples' comments out of context.
That's called libel, and that comment of yours is a great example of it, since a reasonable person could not possibly interpret the words in the way you put them together. Putting them in the form of a question does not by itself absolve you of guilt, since it is obvious your purpose is defamation. (Even if this instance were not obvious, your recorded pattern of behavior makes it so.)
Society has rules, you know, even if Slashdot is lax about enforcing them.
I am not going to respond to your comments about Tweets on Slashdot.
That's BS, no matter who said it. Stop harassing me.
By that logic we should just write off large swathes of the Netherlands.
That doesn't follow. The Netherlands don't have a choice. We do.
Dykes and berms work just fine, and we have the engineering means to keep portions of land we consider valuable dry even if the waters rise 10 or 20 feet.
That also doesn't follow. The dyke and berm system in New Orleans was being "shored up" using local, State, and Federal money, yet "somehow" a very large part of the money mysteriously ended up elsewhere, and not spent on building or maintaining dykes and berms.
The engineering and technology do work just fine... but the "system" of dykes and berms did not.
Oh, bullshit.
People exchanged something for value. It's a market.
The rest is ideology.
Utter nonsense.
Non-monetary iterms in a "market" have value because they're actually USEFUL for something... either in making something else, or turning into something else, or making your manufacturing operation more efficient, etc. That's what GIVES them value.
Carbon offsets are only "valuable" because Government says so. In that way they are like fiat money... almost useless in themselves, only useful for trading for other things.
So it's not a "market" it's government fiat, and it makes no sense to say it has values because it's a market. It isn't. Certainly not a free market, anyway.
And as an analogy to fiat money, Russia and Ukraine have already inflated it by "printing" money they didn't have.
Let me guess: you wanted to make all women look bad by acting out the worst sexist stereotypes of women, and wanted a more credible way to accuse women of being able to "control your behavior" and "decide whether or not you are a criminal" unless we legalize up-skirt panty shots?
Your "guesses" have been no better than your outright lies. Wrong on all counts.
And endlessly quoting yourself about past fabrications is... well... weird. Not that your other behavior has been exactly normal. You really do seem to live in your own little world. Which would be fine, if you just stayed there.
I think it's rather hilarious that you quote fantasies of your own that were previously shown to be wrong, to support your current fantasies. There's a name for that, too.
And thanks once again for confirming beyond doubt who you are. Icing on the cake.
Are you serious, Jane? Or are you just trying to play up your "batshit insane lunatic" cred by pretending that it's not sock-puppeting when you pretend to be a completely different person of a different gender, insisting that others call you "she", fantasizing about fucking "hot guys", and sharing news about women in the locker room isn't sock-puppeting?
WHO is batshit here?
Repeat: pseudonyms with longevity and character behind them are standard procedure on Slashdot. Sock-puppeting is not.
You have no idea what I fantasize about. You're coming off here as a complete loon. I mean serious nutcase. No apologies from here for saying that.
As per your usual habit, YOU are pretending, and projecting that behavior on others.
Or Jane/Lonny Eachus is the world's most blatant hypocrite. And since you're shamelessly bragging about being a good liar...
No, since you insist on bringing this up, let's revisit this. Because you will, just as hilariously as before, lose this one too.
You have often claimed I have been "pretending to be" a woman, mainly because I made a comment long ago that "most people who bothered to look" called me a gal. I let your snide comments slide for a long time, because I believe in giving people "enough rope".
When finally I felt it was no longer funny watching you thrash about lost in your own inanity, I deigned to explain that comment:
Yes, most people who bothered to look at the name "Jane Q. Public" have referred to me here on Slashdot as a gal. Why do you have such a problem with that?
You see, MOST people here on Slashdot ASSUME I am a "he"... and never even look at the handle to which they are replying. Which I find funny as hell, in a rather sad way. But those who DO bother to look -- the rarer cases -- are usually willing to accept it.
I have been planning on writing something about that.
You, however, look at ONLY the handle ("well, not 'only'...") and have been raising a stink about it for years now. It's a fucking pseudonym, twerp. Live with it.
Jane, you're shamelessly bragging about being a good liar.
What evidence do you have that my explanation is a lie? You already know the answer, so I'll tell everybody else: zero.
One of these days -- and there is even the possibility it will be in court -- I will tell you why I chose to use the pseudonym "Jane Q. Public". And when I do, there is a very good chance you will look pretty foolish. I am deliberately understating.
I believe in taking a long-term view of things. And lots and lots of rope.
In "Janeland", as well as Slashdotland, having a consistent pseudonym with a reputation over a period of years is perfectly acceptable behavior.
Sock-puppeting is not.
And "forgetting to log in" is no excuse. I'm ALWAYS logged in when I comment. You USUALLY "forget". Why is that?
Is figuring out how to work that beyond the ken of a physicist? Or is it, which I think more likely, not a matter of "forgetting" at all?
Thanks very much, by the way, for confirming who you are. Big Something is watching you.
This comment is even more astounding than most of your others. Not all, but most.
THIS time, you have not just misrepresented my words, but turned them around 180Â.
That's called lying, man. Just plain lying. Of course, I've caught you at it before, but it has seldom been quite so blatant.
One more thing:
*I* do not sock-puppet as "anonymous coward" on Slashdot. You've done it for years, and I would like to point out yet again that behavior is considered to be the lowest of the low around here.