> the card companies ought to be black boxing the readers, so that the POS system never has access to unencrypted transaction information
You're on the right track. Keep going! Don't stop yet.
How about black boxing the cards?!!!
AKA, Smart Cards. The card itself has a complete computer running Java just like the SIM card in your GSM phone. The computer on the smart card is black boxed. That computer has a private certificate. When transactions are signed by the processor in the card itself, the certificate chain can be verified that the certificate within the smart card is genuine and signed the transaction. Attempting to learn the secret data within the smart card destroys the data, or at least is extremely expensive -- and would only compromise that card making the attack not economically attractive.
I agree. The child porn analogy is a bad one. If the CEO were found with it, that would make me think differently of him, but not necessarily the company itself. (Unless he had somehow created a culture of this throughout the company.)
What RSA has done is lose my trust in the company (which includes the CEO and the highest level decision makers in the company). Criminal personal actions of the CEO would only affect my perception of him and that he should be prosecuted -- and not necessarily the company if he had continued to make good business decisions on the company's behalf.
It is true that if you say something indicating you hold a wrong opinion, someone can still kill you for it without the use of a gun. But that requires a more deliberate effort. It's not quite as lightning quick. Therefore the person offended by your wrong opinion may have a moment of impulse control.
On the other hand, would you support Slashdot implementing a "kill" button that effectively "shoots" the person via the intarwebs who holds a wrong opinion or is guilty of wrong thinking?
That is interesting. Since the entire purpose of a switch() construct in the programming language is to introduce a "computed goto" or lookup table into the object code, a compiler that does not generate this type of code should be called a pessimizing compiler. The opposite of an optimizing compiler.
Optimizing compiler: generates code better than the obvious translation.
Pessimizing compiler: generates code worse than the obvious (and even intended!) translation.
Languages going all the way back to FORTRAN had various forms of 'computed goto' that were intended to be more efficient than a 'stacked if-then-elseif-elseif' construction. If a switch() generates a stacked if-then-elseif construction, then the switch statement has no place in the programming language, as there already are statements that generate precisely this construction.
It basically *is* a lookup table that covers all possible values, but I wrote it a long time ago. (Hence why it returns 0L for non-sane inputs instead of throwing an exception.) A switch() is a lookup table. I could have used a public final static array and done my own bounds checking.
Here is how I do a factorial function. No recursion, no loops, no vectorization needed. It's in Java. Converting this basic idea to C is left as an exercise for advanced readers.
static public long factorial( int n ) {
switch( n ) {
case 0:
case 1: return 1L;
case 2: return 2L;
case 3: return 6L; . . . cases 4 to 18 omitted to bypass slashdot filters . . .
case 19: return 121645100408832000L;
case 20: return 2432902008176640000L;
}
return 0L;
}
> And trying to do it all yourself is a risk of never getting to market.
You don't have to maintain the compiler yourself. You just need to have source code to it, and a compiler that compiles it, for the life of your project. That way, if a newer version of the compiler breaks your project, as the original poster complained of, you always have a working compiler for the life of your project. Your compiler may not get any additional improvements. But having it work vs not work is much more important than incremental improvements.
If WB sends false DMCA takedowns (under penalty of perjury) but it is done by a computer, then it's no big deal.
But if Google returns search results, done by a computer, that might (but not even necessarily) lead to infringing material, it's a national emergency.
> Penalty for infringing on copyrights: uncounted billions.
Uh, excuse me, sir. It was $75 TRILLION. Not mere Billions. Google it: RIAA $75 TRILLION.
Oh, wait, but this is about movies rather than music. Nevermind. It's all okay then.:-(
This may be more than the global GDP, but music is worth it. If you FEEELTHY pirates can't pay $75 trillion because there's not enough wealth on the planet, then you shouldn't listen to the music. Better yet, all music should be locked up where nobody can ever hear it again -- to protect the artists.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but to keep it on topic, let me add. . . . and so I am supposed to trust Microsoft with my source code in a cloud based visual studio? I would say "no thanks" if I were a user of VS.
> Wasn't Microsoft in the 80's and 90's stealing everyone's else ideas in the embrace, extend, and extinguish?
Not just ideas. Actual code. Remember back to MS-DOS 6.0 and Stack Electronics? You can Google it. You may not remember, and I think the Wikipedia article is too kind in omitting some details.
And this is just part of the long history of Microsoft being evil. I find it amusing when youngsters don't understand why people who've been in the computer industry for a long time don't like Microsoft. They just don't know the company's history.
Extra credit: research Internet Explorer and Spyglass. (Short story: Microsoft wakes up and smells the Internet, OMG! it's not just a 'fad' and it's not going away. Mac and Unix already have mature browsers, and third parties have browsers on Windows. Do something! Find a company making an internet browser on Windows. Enter Spyglass which makes the Spyglass browser. Spyglass wants some money. Microsoft negotiates with them to buy it for $100,000 up front, with a royalty percent of all sales. Guess how many copies of Internet Explorer that Microsoft 'sells' ? What does a royalty rate multiplied by zero work out to?)
Or look up Sendo phones. Before the ink is dry on the contract, Microsoft proceeds to start putting Sendo out of business so that Microsoft can exercise a contractual term giving Microsoft all of Sendo's intellectual propety if Sendo goes out of business.
Or Microsoft backstabbing their partner IBM?
But this is but a few examples. There are plenty more.
If the present one is the Large Hadron Collider, the next one the Very Large Hadron Collider, then the following one should be the Ultra Large Hadron Collider.
1. Large Hadron Collider
2. Very Large Hadron Collider
3. Ultra Large Hadron Collider
4. Extremely Large Hadron Collider
5. Gargantuan Large Hadron Collider
6. Mammoth Large Hadron Collider
7. Unbelievably Large Hadron Collider
8. Inconceivably Large Hadron Collider
9. Budget Busting Large Hadron Collider
After this, there won't be money left to build any more.
Each new larger collider should be constructed with it's center at the same center point as previous colliders. Thus all of the colliders form a set of concentric rings. They can be called the Nine Circles of Collision.
> we need to make so people can just get BS patents and troll useing them.
Newsflash: it's already that way right now.
I'm filing for a patent on a method and system for making binary decisions based on the launching of a flat round decision support device into the air and making a determination of the outcome based on which side the decision support device lands on.
I will also sell these decision support devices. A basic model for $10 is made of copper and is decorated with a picture of Lincoln on one side. A more expensive $25 model has a picture of George Washington and is constructed using superior metals.
This is a valuable patent from which I anticipate making a mint (no pun intended).
This is NOT a lame software patent. This is a patent on genuine hardware contributing a genuine advance in the important field of executive management decision making which has major applications in the areas of business, commerce and sporting events.
You beat me to posting the question. So I'll post the answer, which is right in the summary:
"An expert in intellectual property law, Matthew Rimmer, said the draft was 'very prescriptive' and strongly reflected U.S. trade objectives and multinational corporate interests 'with little focus on the rights and interests of consumers, let alone broader community interests.'"
No surprise there. No wonder why it must be done in secret.
Protip: if you must conduct international negotiations in secret, then you're probably not representing the people of the nation you are negotiating on behalf of.
Slashdot Mirror
> the card companies ought to be black boxing the readers, so that the POS system never has access to unencrypted transaction information
You're on the right track. Keep going! Don't stop yet.
How about black boxing the cards?!!!
AKA, Smart Cards. The card itself has a complete computer running Java just like the SIM card in your GSM phone. The computer on the smart card is black boxed. That computer has a private certificate. When transactions are signed by the processor in the card itself, the certificate chain can be verified that the certificate within the smart card is genuine and signed the transaction. Attempting to learn the secret data within the smart card destroys the data, or at least is extremely expensive -- and would only compromise that card making the attack not economically attractive.
Maybe instead, there is something Target should NOT have used in their store POS systems.
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=4000009407
I agree. The child porn analogy is a bad one. If the CEO were found with it, that would make me think differently of him, but not necessarily the company itself. (Unless he had somehow created a culture of this throughout the company.)
What RSA has done is lose my trust in the company (which includes the CEO and the highest level decision makers in the company). Criminal personal actions of the CEO would only affect my perception of him and that he should be prosecuted -- and not necessarily the company if he had continued to make good business decisions on the company's behalf.
It is true that if you say something indicating you hold a wrong opinion, someone can still kill you for it without the use of a gun. But that requires a more deliberate effort. It's not quite as lightning quick. Therefore the person offended by your wrong opinion may have a moment of impulse control.
On the other hand, would you support Slashdot implementing a "kill" button that effectively "shoots" the person via the intarwebs who holds a wrong opinion or is guilty of wrong thinking?
> Why do we allow companies to make business decisions that hurt people? Safeway should be forced to pay all employees for life.
Dear Mr. Troll, what is your position on allowing Copyright to support artists and authors for life? And their children and grandchildren?
> nobody has the right to kill animals. [...ranting profanity laden personal attacks deleted...]
PETA would be outraged at you saying nobody can kill any animals.
How would People Eating Tasty Animals (PETA) get it's tasty animals to eat?
Bumper sticker: I break fur animals.
That is interesting. Since the entire purpose of a switch() construct in the programming language is to introduce a "computed goto" or lookup table into the object code, a compiler that does not generate this type of code should be called a pessimizing compiler. The opposite of an optimizing compiler.
Optimizing compiler: generates code better than the obvious translation.
Pessimizing compiler: generates code worse than the obvious (and even intended!) translation.
Languages going all the way back to FORTRAN had various forms of 'computed goto' that were intended to be more efficient than a 'stacked if-then-elseif-elseif' construction. If a switch() generates a stacked if-then-elseif construction, then the switch statement has no place in the programming language, as there already are statements that generate precisely this construction.
It basically *is* a lookup table that covers all possible values, but I wrote it a long time ago. (Hence why it returns 0L for non-sane inputs instead of throwing an exception.) A switch() is a lookup table. I could have used a public final static array and done my own bounds checking.
Here is how I do a factorial function. No recursion, no loops, no vectorization needed. It's in Java. Converting this basic idea to C is left as an exercise for advanced readers.
static public long factorial( int n ) {
switch( n ) {
case 0:
case 1: return 1L;
case 2: return 2L;
case 3: return 6L;
. . . cases 4 to 18 omitted to bypass slashdot filters . . .
case 19: return 121645100408832000L;
case 20: return 2432902008176640000L;
}
return 0L;
}
> And trying to do it all yourself is a risk of never getting to market.
You don't have to maintain the compiler yourself. You just need to have source code to it, and a compiler that compiles it, for the life of your project. That way, if a newer version of the compiler breaks your project, as the original poster complained of, you always have a working compiler for the life of your project. Your compiler may not get any additional improvements. But having it work vs not work is much more important than incremental improvements.
> Google's new motto "Do as much evil as possible!"
That motto would result in an intellectual property lawsuit from Microsoft.
> . . . to repel water, ice insects and other debris . . .
Great. I just hate it when those ice insects hit my windshield.
Doesn't Silverlight require the computer to be infected with Windows?
I thought that 45 minute meetings in dark alleys were for when the cop is beating someone up enough to have them hospitalized.
If WB sends false DMCA takedowns (under penalty of perjury) but it is done by a computer, then it's no big deal.
But if Google returns search results, done by a computer, that might (but not even necessarily) lead to infringing material, it's a national emergency.
> Penalty for infringing on copyrights: uncounted billions.
:-(
Uh, excuse me, sir. It was $75 TRILLION. Not mere Billions. Google it: RIAA $75 TRILLION.
Oh, wait, but this is about movies rather than music. Nevermind. It's all okay then.
This may be more than the global GDP, but music is worth it. If you FEEELTHY pirates can't pay $75 trillion because there's not enough wealth on the planet, then you shouldn't listen to the music. Better yet, all music should be locked up where nobody can ever hear it again -- to protect the artists.
> I think MS has discovered a worse way to write code than using notepad! Bravo!
Um, sir, I think you have forgotten about Edlin.
What could possibly go wrong with trusting Microsoft with critical servers, and backing up your data?
See this: T-Mobile Sidekick Disaster: Danger's Servers Crashed, And They Don't Have A Backup
Sorry to reply to my own post, but to keep it on topic, let me add. . . . and so I am supposed to trust Microsoft with my source code in a cloud based visual studio? I would say "no thanks" if I were a user of VS.
> Wasn't Microsoft in the 80's and 90's stealing everyone's else ideas in the embrace, extend, and extinguish?
Not just ideas. Actual code. Remember back to MS-DOS 6.0 and Stack Electronics? You can Google it. You may not remember, and I think the Wikipedia article is too kind in omitting some details.
And this is just part of the long history of Microsoft being evil. I find it amusing when youngsters don't understand why people who've been in the computer industry for a long time don't like Microsoft. They just don't know the company's history.
Extra credit: research Internet Explorer and Spyglass. (Short story: Microsoft wakes up and smells the Internet, OMG! it's not just a 'fad' and it's not going away. Mac and Unix already have mature browsers, and third parties have browsers on Windows. Do something! Find a company making an internet browser on Windows. Enter Spyglass which makes the Spyglass browser. Spyglass wants some money. Microsoft negotiates with them to buy it for $100,000 up front, with a royalty percent of all sales. Guess how many copies of Internet Explorer that Microsoft 'sells' ? What does a royalty rate multiplied by zero work out to?)
Or look up Sendo phones. Before the ink is dry on the contract, Microsoft proceeds to start putting Sendo out of business so that Microsoft can exercise a contractual term giving Microsoft all of Sendo's intellectual propety if Sendo goes out of business.
Or Microsoft backstabbing their partner IBM?
But this is but a few examples. There are plenty more.
They need to get a naming convention started.
If the present one is the Large Hadron Collider, the next one the Very Large Hadron Collider, then the following one should be the Ultra Large Hadron Collider.
1. Large Hadron Collider
2. Very Large Hadron Collider
3. Ultra Large Hadron Collider
4. Extremely Large Hadron Collider
5. Gargantuan Large Hadron Collider
6. Mammoth Large Hadron Collider
7. Unbelievably Large Hadron Collider
8. Inconceivably Large Hadron Collider
9. Budget Busting Large Hadron Collider
After this, there won't be money left to build any more.
Each new larger collider should be constructed with it's center at the same center point as previous colliders. Thus all of the colliders form a set of concentric rings. They can be called the Nine Circles of Collision.
> we need to make so people can just get BS patents and troll useing them.
Newsflash: it's already that way right now.
I'm filing for a patent on a method and system for making binary decisions based on the launching of a flat round decision support device into the air and making a determination of the outcome based on which side the decision support device lands on. I will also sell these decision support devices. A basic model for $10 is made of copper and is decorated with a picture of Lincoln on one side. A more expensive $25 model has a picture of George Washington and is constructed using superior metals. This is a valuable patent from which I anticipate making a mint (no pun intended). This is NOT a lame software patent. This is a patent on genuine hardware contributing a genuine advance in the important field of executive management decision making which has major applications in the areas of business, commerce and sporting events.
No surprise there. No wonder why it must be done in secret.
Protip: if you must conduct international negotiations in secret, then you're probably not representing the people of the nation you are negotiating on behalf of.
> You haven't figured out how to get free drugs using the Internet?
Not by using bit torrent I haven't. Yet. But once I do, the next challenge will be how to get them from my Downloads folder and into my hand.
Microsoft just needs to bring out a patent. For example, a method and system of controlling a computer's hardware. (with rounded corners)