I know plenty of math people (Students, PhDs, Profs) who suck massive balls at programming or/and at computers in general. It's not the same thing, it's not even a similar thing. Like many things, just because it can be described by math (which pretty much goes for anything) doesn't mean it's anything like maths. Same fallacy as physicists who think they're universally knowledgable because in the end, everything boils down to physics.
Math people have extra difficulties because they're intimitately familiar with concepts and terminology that's fundamentally different between math and programming, sometimes outright backwards (e.g. our variables are their constants, their variables are... well we don't have a concept like that in imperative programming. Or functions with no functional description but side-effects (wtf is a side-effect in math?). Et cetera.
How do you propose keeping the foils in one orbit?
I propose doing it with the law of gravity.
Okay, how do you deal with *o-spheric drag? What orbital height do you propose?
I also propose that you arent very knowledgeable about anything dealing with physics but amazingly you somehow are pretending to think you are smart enough to form cogent valid arguments. You arent. You know it. Dishonesty. Thats you.
Not the guy you replied to, but color me curious. You're arguing for putting half a billion tons of aluminum into orbit. Since you're obviously very knowledgable about anything dealing with physics, please give a quick outline of how you'd do that.
If I were a simulation I sure as hell would NOT try to destroy the guy who's running the simulator, because that'd be, like, retarded^Wcounter productive. Maybe as an elaborate way of committing suicide, but that's about it.
When they stimulated a sheet-like area of neurons called the claustrum, Koubeissi noticed something odd: rather than responding to commands, the woman was just staring blankly into space.
So that sounds like they turned off more than just consciousness -- otherwise the person would still respond to commands etc, just unconsciously so, no?
I'd say more rigorous testing, use of mature technology and code review? You know, the things that typically don't happen in consumer grade crapware, but it kind of does work in aerospace, spaceflight and military systems. Mostly anyway.
Ohhh, now everything makes sense. I'm seeing more and more references to "blockchain" [without article] like it was a product or so instead of a data structure; I kept wondering where the fucking article went. It's hiding in a software! We should try to lure it back.
A cert represents a secret. A password is a secret.
There you have the fundamental difference #1. Although I wouldn't exactly say the cert represents the secret. It's a data structure around a non-secret that was signed by a secret.
They take the password you sent and verify that it's the correct secret by pushing it through a hashing algorithm and verifying the result matches the established, good value.
Yes. Do you not see how in this case you're transmitting the secret while in a certificate case you're not transmitting the secret?
(Hint: They never, ever do. Even EV certs are a joke.)
That's just not true.
Just because the terms "password" and "cert" are used doesn't mean they're fundamentally different. They're both built upon a single core concept, a secret.
Just because two things are built upon a similar concept doesn't mean they're the same. A lot of things are built upon the concept of a secret and have nothing to do whatsoever with a password. For example, cheating on your wife etc.
Since at least the 1980s (Kerberos) and dial-up modems used CHAP in 1996, you can authenticate via a password without transmitting the password.
Yes, true. (Although it's 2018 and I have yet to see an ISP that wouldn't use PAP)
There are even better algorithms that use passwords, without transmitting or storing them on the server. For example, the server can store a salted bcrypt of the password. Upon login, the server generates a random number (the challenge) and sends that to the client, along with the salt the server has chosen for this user. The client then computes and sends:
The server can verify that without having the password transmitted, or stored on the server.
Interesting, although the last authentication protocol I've heard to have that property (MS-CHAP, not that I knew many authentication protocols) was broken.
You would be correct to say that *sending plaintext passwords over the network (1970s style)* is much less secure than public keys.
Yes, however it's not like "sending plaintext passwords over the network" wasn't a common thing in 2018.
You can certainly use passwords without sending them over the network, though - that issue has been solved for decades.
Yes. You've just explained one and referred to another. You got your point across, no need to be redundant.
> Plus, even shitty private keys (1024 bits) are way stronger, entropy-wise, than a password so there's that, too.
Much like a LONG password (pass sentence).
Well, who uses a LONG pass sentence? It has to be pretty long if you limit yourself to actual words and want to compete with 1024bits of random data, which means 128 bytes from an alphabet the size of 256.
And it's not even like I would deny that the private key is like a password in a file.
The statement I was refuting is that the *certificate* is like a password in a file, because it's clearly not, and that point still stands.
That you think two different strings of texts are different
That you think two different strings are not different is, frankly, retarded.
and one has magical powers is cute.
I'm not saying one has magical powers, I'm just pointing out that there's a substantial difference between password-based authentication and X.509-based authentication. Anyway, I'm not going to explain it again since it's obviously over your head.
Slashdot Mirror
If you saw the words "header-only library" and felt a warm glow, then this is for you.
I felt a warm piece of vomit in my mouth, is it still for me?
So in the end, Intel is going to make a shitton of money on Meltdown and Spectre because everybody is supposed to buy their new, fixed CPUs
The computer in your microwave can also carry out arbitrary instructions.
Really? Can I program it to count down by twos?
Sure, you need a screwdriver, a JTAG adapter and another computer.
then a Raspberry Pi is a computer as well.
Well no shit. Raspi is a hugely powerful computer compared to the computer in, say, your e-toothbrush.
I know plenty of math people (Students, PhDs, Profs) who suck massive balls at programming or/and at computers in general. It's not the same thing, it's not even a similar thing. Like many things, just because it can be described by math (which pretty much goes for anything) doesn't mean it's anything like maths. Same fallacy as physicists who think they're universally knowledgable because in the end, everything boils down to physics.
Math people have extra difficulties because they're intimitately familiar with concepts and terminology that's fundamentally different between math and programming, sometimes outright backwards (e.g. our variables are their constants, their variables are ... well we don't have a concept like that in imperative programming. Or functions with no functional description but side-effects (wtf is a side-effect in math?). Et cetera.
I don't understand what B GIVING C is, and what impact adding A to that might have. Care to elaborate?
we invented slashdot and we invented hashtags and we invented internet
From that I extrapolate that 2 out 3 things you come up with are shit.
You seem to have no idea how big deserts can be.
Right, because the water used by power plants is synthesized on-site.
And don't forget about the chemtrails. /s
How do you propose keeping the foils in one orbit?
I propose doing it with the law of gravity.
Okay, how do you deal with *o-spheric drag? What orbital height do you propose?
I also propose that you arent very knowledgeable about anything dealing with physics but amazingly you somehow are pretending to think you are smart enough to form cogent valid arguments. You arent. You know it. Dishonesty. Thats you.
Not the guy you replied to, but color me curious. You're arguing for putting half a billion tons of aluminum into orbit. Since you're obviously very knowledgable about anything dealing with physics, please give a quick outline of how you'd do that.
I'm not holding my breath.
If I were a simulation I sure as hell would NOT try to destroy the guy who's running the simulator, because that'd be, like, retarded^Wcounter productive. Maybe as an elaborate way of committing suicide, but that's about it.
When they stimulated a sheet-like area of neurons called the claustrum, Koubeissi noticed something odd: rather than responding to commands, the woman was just staring blankly into space.
So that sounds like they turned off more than just consciousness -- otherwise the person would still respond to commands etc, just unconsciously so, no?
I've often wondered how much diesel they idle away doing this?
Likely negligible amounts compared to what is consumed when there's actually some load on the engine.
I'd say more rigorous testing, use of mature technology and code review? You know, the things that typically don't happen in consumer grade crapware, but it kind of does work in aerospace, spaceflight and military systems. Mostly anyway.
And then 6 more days per week posting complete garbage that 'stupid' doesn't even come close to describing
the internet (now spelled with a small "i" I think)
It's an internet but it's still the Internet. You'd use lowercase when talking about a different set of interconnected networks.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to be a blast at a party somewhere.
So the LKML is operational, all that's down is a website. Meh.
You have a lot of nice camera gears
My nice collection of camera gears begs to differ. Most are from the drive that moves the objective.
But Ivan, that is question, not information.
Ohhh, now everything makes sense. I'm seeing more and more references to "blockchain" [without article] like it was a product or so instead of a data structure; I kept wondering where the fucking article went. It's hiding in a software! We should try to lure it back.
A cert represents a secret.
A password is a secret.
There you have the fundamental difference #1. Although I wouldn't exactly say the cert represents the secret. It's a data structure around a non-secret that was signed by a secret.
They take the password you sent and verify that it's the correct secret by pushing it through a hashing algorithm and verifying the result matches the established, good value.
Yes. Do you not see how in this case you're transmitting the secret while in a certificate case you're not transmitting the secret?
(Hint: They never, ever do. Even EV certs are a joke.)
That's just not true.
Just because the terms "password" and "cert" are used doesn't mean they're fundamentally different. They're both built upon a single core concept, a secret.
Just because two things are built upon a similar concept doesn't mean they're the same. A lot of things are built upon the concept of a secret and have nothing to do whatsoever with a password. For example, cheating on your wife etc.
It's an artist's impression, ffs, not an autist's impression. What do you expect an artist to do, draw nothing?
Since at least the 1980s (Kerberos) and dial-up modems used CHAP in 1996, you can authenticate via a password without transmitting the password.
Yes, true. (Although it's 2018 and I have yet to see an ISP that wouldn't use PAP)
There are even better algorithms that use passwords, without transmitting or storing them on the server. For example, the server can store a salted bcrypt of the password. Upon login, the server generates a random number (the challenge) and sends that to the client, along with the salt the server has chosen for this user. The client then computes and sends:
H(H(Hs(password, salt)), challenge) xor Hs(password, salt)
The server can verify that without having the password transmitted, or stored on the server.
Interesting, although the last authentication protocol I've heard to have that property (MS-CHAP, not that I knew many authentication protocols) was broken.
You would be correct to say that *sending plaintext passwords over the network (1970s style)* is much less secure than public keys.
Yes, however it's not like "sending plaintext passwords over the network" wasn't a common thing in 2018.
You can certainly use passwords without sending them over the network, though - that issue has been solved for decades.
Yes. You've just explained one and referred to another. You got your point across, no need to be redundant.
> Plus, even shitty private keys (1024 bits) are way stronger, entropy-wise, than a password so there's that, too.
Much like a LONG password (pass sentence).
Well, who uses a LONG pass sentence? It has to be pretty long if you limit yourself to actual words and want to compete with 1024bits of random data, which means 128 bytes from an alphabet the size of 256.
And it's not even like I would deny that the private key is like a password in a file.
The statement I was refuting is that the *certificate* is like a password in a file, because it's clearly not, and that point still stands.
That you think two different strings of texts are different
That you think two different strings are not different is, frankly, retarded.
and one has magical powers is cute.
I'm not saying one has magical powers, I'm just pointing out that there's a substantial difference between password-based authentication and X.509-based authentication. Anyway, I'm not going to explain it again since it's obviously over your head.
Yes, open wifi operators used to be potentially liable.