Bantam books has just reprinted Voltaire's Candide, available at your locally-owned corner bookstore or at Barnes & Noble.
No, it's not a sex book. You're thinking of Justine, which couldn't be more different.
Candide is said to be Voltaire's most important work, yet it's a readable narrative (like Abbott's Flatland) rather than a dry and dusty tome (like James's Pragmatism).
It's not hard to figure out that BIOS programmers are pretty unprofessional. Just go get a half dozen different motherboards, boot into CMOS config, and select one of the cryptic little configuration options nobody ever messes with, say, "Chronosynclastic Infandibulum". Now, press the "help" key and read the incredibly useful help message: "This option selects Chronosynclastic Infandibulum".
I'd fire any programmer who did that, but it's de rigeur for BIOSes.
I suspect most readers of this forum are primarily concerned with appropriate key lengths for use with their SSH and PGP software. Some people think your sieve makes their 768 and 1024-bit keys obsolete.
I certainly hope some circuits based on your ideas get physically built, rather than merely modeled mathematically, so we can get some empirical data. Best of luck with the grant!
I never used Sun's NFS, but i was planning in the near future, so what way to share file's nice and secure in a unix network ? like if you want to mount homedirs and such.
Unfortunately, I do not think (Warning! Controversial Opinion!) there is a "nice and secure" way to share files in a heterogenous *nix network. You can have one or the other, basically. Granted, if you have a monoculture of Sun systems with up-to-date security patches, you can probably do it, but I don't know anybody running a network like that.
Another post replying to yours said "samba". I'm sure Tridge will forgive me for pointing out that Samba mimics Microsoft's unbelievably kludgy implementation of IBM's NetBIOS protocol - the kludges being there to compensate for the fact that IBM designed NetBIOS for networks of 25 machines or less. Samba is a wonderful way to interconnect VMS and *nix machines with Microsoft clients, but other than that it's an abortion. Do not use it if you don't have to!
Another poster pointed out the reason for the "Usually" in my description of "usually insecure". If all your *nix boxes run the same version of the same vendor's latest implementation of NFS, it can be secured. In a true heterogenous environment, though, I have never seen anything but pain and suffering result from trying to implement secure NFS. And incidentally, NFS is inherently subject to denial of service attacks (so is NIS/YP) so you certainly can't depend on it if there are any unsecured hosts elsewhere on the network.
Once you decide to sacrifice "nice" and go for "secure", or vice-versa, your options get broader. Look into Coda, Andrew, u9fs, or Styx, for example.
Basically, Dan Bernstein (who has written useable but controversial alternatives to BIND and SENDMAIL) figured out a new method for breaking RSA encryption based on custom hardware. The fellows mentioned in the headline, who are also legit crypto guys, have analysed Dr. Bernstein's work and make the following observations:
1) it's not quite as fast as Bernstein estimated (about half as fast for cliff notes purposes)
2) the hardware could be affordable (others have claimed costs that are only feasible for governments)
3) you don't have to revoke all your RSA keys because there are steps that precede the application of the Berstein method that still take absurd amounts of time and horsepower.
Oh, yeah, and it has nothing to do with Sun's NFS (Network File System, a lame and usually insecure way to share files).
Bernstein will no doubt reply. He isn't a shy guy from my experience.
I once ran across some slightly inebriated normal citizens who had gotten hold of a computer magazine.
They were doing "dramatic readings of this alphabet soup", as they explained it to me, accompanied by gales of laughter. Listening to them, I had to admit it was funny, but I don't think we were enjoying the same joke.
Thank you, apology accepted. I understand that the flurry of pro- and anti- Israel posts is making things a bit confusing.
But, yes, I know it's an odd question. As I understand it, Talmudic scholars are encouraged to use their reasoning abilities to apply historical lessons and principles to modern situations when possible. I thought that such a scholar as Mr. Barr (I didn't know he was Israeli at the time) with his obviously strong mind, and the inclination to study problems in depth, might have a viewpoint that could shed an unusual light on a murky subject.
I can't say I'm assuming Mr. Barr will be totally objective. If by some miracle he responds to this thread I hope to take his answer in the spirit it is given! After all, there are apparently Israeli citizens serving jail sentences for refusing to carry out military orders against Palestinians (I say "apparently" because it's hearsay to me; I have not confirmed this with any Israeli authorities) and I have seen televised protests (by Israeli citizens) that indicate not all Israelis are united in their views. I know an American Jew who is a fervent anti-Zionist. I have met European Christians who are equally fervent Zionists, and Egyptian muslims who have no problem with the continued existence of Israel. So, in the unlikely event that Moshe Barr answers my original post, we may all be suprised. For all I know, he may be a Buddhist!
PS - Thanks for the date on the Talmud, I am a knowledge junkie.
I don't know why you got modded down, I thought your post was interesting and the points you raised should be considered by anyone serious about understanding the issue.
But to draw analogies to Nazi Germany is vile and morally repugnant and is indicative of either true ignorance or unadulterated hatred
on the part of the original poster.
Excuse me? As the original poster I must point out that I have not drawn "analogies to Nazi Germany" nor have I taken a side in the debate for/against boycotting Israel. I wanted to know what Moshe Bar thinks about the issue, in his capacities as both a Jewish scholar and an obviously brilliant man.
While I have stated that extreme viewpoints exist (are you seriously denying that?), I have not in any way claimed to share them. I find your implication that my actions are "vile and morally repugnant" as well as your specific accusation of "true ignorance or unadulterated hatred" to be both unfounded and insulting.
If you think your attacks on me are likely to further your own agenda, I fear you are mistaken; I am going to have to discount your views if you can't understand what I'm asking. I have purposely not taken a stand at this time, and I've repeatedly said that. The box you are trying to force me into is of your own making; while it may reveal something about your thought processes, it has precious little to do with mine.
I assume that you are talking about yourself so I have to ask.
I'm not talking about myself, actually. My opinions on the issue are somewhat conflicted, and I can see that there are serious flaws in the arguments of nearly everyone I've heard rant about the issue. But this is a big issue among the supposedly "apolitical" techno-geeks!
I strongly disagree with you but I am open to rational arguments based on fact and looking at the whole picture.
I admire your willingness to engage in a considered debate, and we may disagree rather less than you suppose!
I had hoped that by stating the existence of a deep dichotomy in the high-tech community, rather than pledging allegiance to any particular flag, I could get past the zealots. Unfortunately, simply stating the depth of this schism seems to have triggered the people who (unlike yourself) are incapable of rational consideration of the issue.
In retrospect, I shouldn't have mentioned Nazism. It comes up every single time the issue is mentioned, though, so I thought I'd try to head off the inevitable... clearly a mistake, since the original question is now being modded into oblivion.
Good thing I don't actually care about Slashdot karma, I'm going to lose big on this one... still, I will wait to reveal my own viewpoint until after Moshe Bar has had the opportunity to respond - as unlikely as that is, given the moderation trend.
I have not made any statements whatsoever about my personal beliefs on this issue. I am, however, interested in Mr. Barr's. I don't know why you think I've taken a position either for or against Israel; I suggest that you work on your reading comprehension skills. And don't bother quoting me without context to make accusations; I won't reply.
Make sure the co-host is not networked at all; have the connection be a pair of RS-232 serial lines instead. On the line that sends the data to be validated, clip the wire that would allow signal to be transmitted back - (break RD, leave TD intact) to create a one-way signalling method.
Go/no-go decisions are signalled on the other link, either with simple sense carrier signalling (wire CD to DTR or whatever) or a very restriced set of allowed responses.
Programming the system is a pain in the ass since you have to use the console, but once set up it should be so simple it'll need no other maintenance than backup tape loading.
Any cracker who can figure out how to break your system when you have no net link is so much smarter than you, you're probably doomed anyway!
Thank you for your comments. (I hope Mr. Barr will choose to share his insight also, but I guess that'll depend on the moderators.)
I'm trying not to make any further comments here myself, because it's so difficult to say anything without inflaming the fanatic anti-semites and equally fanatic anti-anti-semites - if I make the slightest slip of phrase one party or the other will gleefully misinterpret everything else I've said.
I'm honestly not trying to promote any viewpoint of my own here. I'd really like to see Mr. Barr's response to the Israeli Boycott question, because it's something much discussed in the high-tech circles I move in. Many people on both sides of the issue have very strong beliefs that are not based on propaganda or knee-jerk reactions.
It's rare that one gets the chance to talk to a Talmudic scholar who understands geek issues. I feel privileged to be able to pose the question in a public forum! It's not intended as a troll, in the classical sense, though I guess since all posts to this topic are asking Mr. Barr for a response they could all be considered trolls.
Thanks for at least being polite and concise in your reply, but I think any moderator who mods my question up simply wants to see the answer. Why would anyone want to prevent their search for answers?
Many geeks track politics from a logically analytical standpoint rather than from an emotional, nationalistic, or religiously prescribed stance.
Some of these "freethinkers" have come to the conclusion that Israel is a racist theocracy no better than the WW2 German Nationialism that spawned it. Right or wrong, this viewpoint exists, and my question is based not on the debatable truth of this view but rather on its existence.
Much technology development, and many great programmers (Arnold Robbins comes to mind) are resident in Israel. Is it legitimate (from your perspective as a student of the Talmud) to use one's influence to dissuade one's employer from using technology developed in Israel, if one has anti-Zionist beliefs? What if using one's position to show solidarity with the oppressed Semitic peoples of Israel and Palestine is a disservice to one's employer? Is the responsibility to the employer greater than the responsibility to personal conscience?
And finally, does it make a difference if you're Jewish, and have spent countless hours in thought, study and prayer before arriving at the decision to boycott Israel?
Are you seriously telling me that France has been flouting it's obligations under the convention for the last 30 years and that nothing has been done about it?
No, I'm seriously telling you that the French legal system works differently than you believe it does. The further conclusion is your own, not mine! I do appreciate that you are not one of the jingoistic, knee-jerk boneheads who have also posted on this topic.
I have no idea what powers the "European Convention on Human Rights" has to punish or even investigate the infractions of signatories. But I can tell you that documents don't change reality without physical action. For example, Kuwait has signed at least five treaties outlawing slavery, yet the slave trade continues to flourish there according a recent Scientific American article. Another example, the US is signatory to the Geneva Convention, but much of the world considers the US-sponsored Iraq Sanctions to be in violation of that treaty.
My elder sister (who has a Phd., studied at the Sorbonne, lived in Paris for nearly five years, and currently owns a flat in Provence) confirms that France's legal system is fundamentally different from that of England and the United States. Judges are charged with finding the truth of events, rather than finding the guilt or innocence of the accused, and accusations are believed to be disproveable if false. I am told that the Mexican legal system is also based on the Napoleonic Code, but I do not know the truth of that statement.
Finally, allow me to point out that treaties often read differently in different languages; for an example the 1797 Treaty of Tripoliis distinctly different in the English and Arabic versions. I certainly am not claiming this is the case in the convention you've referenced (I am not fluent in French in any case) but I will hold by my statement that "guilty until proven innocent" is a specific feature of the legal system of the United American States that is not shared by the legal systems of all nations. Some societies get along without it just fine, while others that do subscribe to this principle are despotic tyrannies nonetheless.
Use the excellent rsync from Paul Makerras (of pppd fame) and Andrew Tridgell (samba team) in combination with OpenSSH and SSH for windows (both based on Tatu Ylonen's work; OpenSSH is maintained by and expert team including Markus Friedl and the recently monkey-cracked Dug Song, among others).
Set up your accounts to rsync-upload changes to whichever server is most secure when you log out, and use a cron job on that server to rsync-download to all the other servers nightly. You can make a tar backup part of the system also.
You will have to remember what's going on so you don't modify the same file differently on two different systems within 24 hours. If you want to overcome that shortcoming by making this work on an immediate sync basis rather than periodically, you'll need something like SGI's fam (included with recent linux distros) to trigger the updating processes.
You should already be 90% there if you have your ssh keys set up for passwordless login. Passwordless PKI logins are not significantly less secure than passworded logins in most situations (granted hostile system management can get you, but the BOFH can trojan your login anyway).
Lots of people use this technique to sync CVS trees over slow links. Rsync is very efficient for that kind of thing (large volume of files, low number of changed bytes).
You will find that many, many countries use this premise. It works because of the way the rest of the system is structured.
I can't force you to understand or believe anything, and it appears that most respondents to my post are unwilling to do the most cursory investigation of any statement that contradicts their unwarranted prejudices.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not a sex book. You're thinking of Justine , which couldn't be more different.
Candide is said to be Voltaire's most important work, yet it's a readable narrative (like Abbott's Flatland ) rather than a dry and dusty tome (like James's Pragmatism ).
They typically can't spell interociter either. Talentless hacks.
It's not hard to figure out that BIOS programmers are pretty unprofessional. Just go get a half dozen different motherboards, boot into CMOS config, and select one of the cryptic little configuration options nobody ever messes with, say, "Chronosynclastic Infandibulum". Now, press the "help" key and read the incredibly useful help message: "This option selects Chronosynclastic Infandibulum".
I'd fire any programmer who did that, but it's de rigeur for BIOSes.
Thanks for your correction to my post, Dr. B.
I suspect most readers of this forum are primarily concerned with appropriate key lengths for use with their SSH and PGP software. Some people think your sieve makes their 768 and 1024-bit keys obsolete.
I certainly hope some circuits based on your ideas get physically built, rather than merely modeled mathematically, so we can get some empirical data. Best of luck with the grant!
I give credit to Melinda, personally - she's obviously got a fine head on her shoulders.
Pretty fine shoulders, too, come to think of it.
Another post replying to yours said "samba". I'm sure Tridge will forgive me for pointing out that Samba mimics Microsoft's unbelievably kludgy implementation of IBM's NetBIOS protocol - the kludges being there to compensate for the fact that IBM designed NetBIOS for networks of 25 machines or less. Samba is a wonderful way to interconnect VMS and *nix machines with Microsoft clients, but other than that it's an abortion. Do not use it if you don't have to!
Another poster pointed out the reason for the "Usually" in my description of "usually insecure". If all your *nix boxes run the same version of the same vendor's latest implementation of NFS, it can be secured. In a true heterogenous environment, though, I have never seen anything but pain and suffering result from trying to implement secure NFS. And incidentally, NFS is inherently subject to denial of service attacks (so is NIS/YP) so you certainly can't depend on it if there are any unsecured hosts elsewhere on the network.
Once you decide to sacrifice "nice" and go for "secure", or vice-versa, your options get broader. Look into Coda, Andrew, u9fs, or Styx, for example.
Basically, Dan Bernstein (who has written useable but controversial alternatives to BIND and SENDMAIL) figured out a new method for breaking RSA encryption based on custom hardware. The fellows mentioned in the headline, who are also legit crypto guys, have analysed Dr. Bernstein's work and make the following observations:
1) it's not quite as fast as Bernstein estimated (about half as fast for cliff notes purposes)
2) the hardware could be affordable (others have claimed costs that are only feasible for governments)
3) you don't have to revoke all your RSA keys because there are steps that precede the application of the Berstein method that still take absurd amounts of time and horsepower.
Oh, yeah, and it has nothing to do with Sun's NFS (Network File System, a lame and usually insecure way to share files).
Bernstein will no doubt reply. He isn't a shy guy from my experience.
I once ran across some slightly inebriated normal citizens who had gotten hold of a computer magazine.
They were doing "dramatic readings of this alphabet soup", as they explained it to me, accompanied by gales of laughter. Listening to them, I had to admit it was funny, but I don't think we were enjoying the same joke.
OMB probably thinks linux is an excel macro.
Tome Seaver: Hey, Yogi, what time is it?
Yogi Berra: You mean now?
Thank you, apology accepted. I understand that the flurry of pro- and anti- Israel posts is making things a bit confusing.
But, yes, I know it's an odd question. As I understand it, Talmudic scholars are encouraged to use their reasoning abilities to apply historical lessons and principles to modern situations when possible. I thought that such a scholar as Mr. Barr (I didn't know he was Israeli at the time) with his obviously strong mind, and the inclination to study problems in depth, might have a viewpoint that could shed an unusual light on a murky subject.
I can't say I'm assuming Mr. Barr will be totally objective. If by some miracle he responds to this thread I hope to take his answer in the spirit it is given! After all, there are apparently Israeli citizens serving jail sentences for refusing to carry out military orders against Palestinians (I say "apparently" because it's hearsay to me; I have not confirmed this with any Israeli authorities) and I have seen televised protests (by Israeli citizens) that indicate not all Israelis are united in their views. I know an American Jew who is a fervent anti-Zionist. I have met European Christians who are equally fervent Zionists, and Egyptian muslims who have no problem with the continued existence of Israel. So, in the unlikely event that Moshe Barr answers my original post, we may all be suprised. For all I know, he may be a Buddhist!
PS - Thanks for the date on the Talmud, I am a knowledge junkie.
I don't know why you got modded down, I thought your post was interesting and the points you raised should be considered by anyone serious about understanding the issue.
While I have stated that extreme viewpoints exist (are you seriously denying that?), I have not in any way claimed to share them. I find your implication that my actions are "vile and morally repugnant" as well as your specific accusation of "true ignorance or unadulterated hatred" to be both unfounded and insulting.
If you think your attacks on me are likely to further your own agenda, I fear you are mistaken; I am going to have to discount your views if you can't understand what I'm asking. I have purposely not taken a stand at this time, and I've repeatedly said that. The box you are trying to force me into is of your own making; while it may reveal something about your thought processes, it has precious little to do with mine.
I had hoped that by stating the existence of a deep dichotomy in the high-tech community, rather than pledging allegiance to any particular flag, I could get past the zealots. Unfortunately, simply stating the depth of this schism seems to have triggered the people who (unlike yourself) are incapable of rational consideration of the issue.
In retrospect, I shouldn't have mentioned Nazism. It comes up every single time the issue is mentioned, though, so I thought I'd try to head off the inevitable... clearly a mistake, since the original question is now being modded into oblivion.
Good thing I don't actually care about Slashdot karma, I'm going to lose big on this one... still, I will wait to reveal my own viewpoint until after Moshe Bar has had the opportunity to respond - as unlikely as that is, given the moderation trend.
I have not made any statements whatsoever about my personal beliefs on this issue. I am, however, interested in Mr. Barr's. I don't know why you think I've taken a position either for or against Israel; I suggest that you work on your reading comprehension skills. And don't bother quoting me without context to make accusations; I won't reply.
Make sure the co-host is not networked at all; have the connection be a pair of RS-232 serial lines instead. On the line that sends the data to be validated, clip the wire that would allow signal to be transmitted back - (break RD, leave TD intact) to create a one-way signalling method.
Go/no-go decisions are signalled on the other link, either with simple sense carrier signalling (wire CD to DTR or whatever) or a very restriced set of allowed responses.
Programming the system is a pain in the ass since you have to use the console, but once set up it should be so simple it'll need no other maintenance than backup tape loading.
Any cracker who can figure out how to break your system when you have no net link is so much smarter than you, you're probably doomed anyway!
Thank you for your comments. (I hope Mr. Barr will choose to share his insight also, but I guess that'll depend on the moderators.)
I'm trying not to make any further comments here myself, because it's so difficult to say anything without inflaming the fanatic anti-semites and equally fanatic anti-anti-semites - if I make the slightest slip of phrase one party or the other will gleefully misinterpret everything else I've said.
I'm honestly not trying to promote any viewpoint of my own here. I'd really like to see Mr. Barr's response to the Israeli Boycott question, because it's something much discussed in the high-tech circles I move in. Many people on both sides of the issue have very strong beliefs that are not based on propaganda or knee-jerk reactions.
It's rare that one gets the chance to talk to a Talmudic scholar who understands geek issues. I feel privileged to be able to pose the question in a public forum! It's not intended as a troll, in the classical sense, though I guess since all posts to this topic are asking Mr. Barr for a response they could all be considered trolls.
Thanks for at least being polite and concise in your reply, but I think any moderator who mods my question up simply wants to see the answer. Why would anyone want to prevent their search for answers?
Many geeks track politics from a logically analytical standpoint rather than from an emotional, nationalistic, or religiously prescribed stance.
Some of these "freethinkers" have come to the conclusion that Israel is a racist theocracy no better than the WW2 German Nationialism that spawned it. Right or wrong, this viewpoint exists, and my question is based not on the debatable truth of this view but rather on its existence.
Much technology development, and many great programmers (Arnold Robbins comes to mind) are resident in Israel. Is it legitimate (from your perspective as a student of the Talmud) to use one's influence to dissuade one's employer from using technology developed in Israel, if one has anti-Zionist beliefs? What if using one's position to show solidarity with the oppressed Semitic peoples of Israel and Palestine is a disservice to one's employer? Is the responsibility to the employer greater than the responsibility to personal conscience?
And finally, does it make a difference if you're Jewish, and have spent countless hours in thought, study and prayer before arriving at the decision to boycott Israel?
Naw, if they bring up Cthulu we can just ram a boat into the back of his head. Puts him back to sleep every time.
Bravo, your entire post demonstrates an unfamiliarity with the issues that is simply staggering. You have reached troll nirvana!
I have no idea what powers the "European Convention on Human Rights" has to punish or even investigate the infractions of signatories. But I can tell you that documents don't change reality without physical action. For example, Kuwait has signed at least five treaties outlawing slavery, yet the slave trade continues to flourish there according a recent Scientific American article. Another example, the US is signatory to the Geneva Convention, but much of the world considers the US-sponsored Iraq Sanctions to be in violation of that treaty.
My elder sister (who has a Phd., studied at the Sorbonne, lived in Paris for nearly five years, and currently owns a flat in Provence) confirms that France's legal system is fundamentally different from that of England and the United States. Judges are charged with finding the truth of events, rather than finding the guilt or innocence of the accused, and accusations are believed to be disproveable if false. I am told that the Mexican legal system is also based on the Napoleonic Code, but I do not know the truth of that statement.
Finally, allow me to point out that treaties often read differently in different languages; for an example the 1797 Treaty of Tripoliis distinctly different in the English and Arabic versions. I certainly am not claiming this is the case in the convention you've referenced (I am not fluent in French in any case) but I will hold by my statement that "guilty until proven innocent" is a specific feature of the legal system of the United American States that is not shared by the legal systems of all nations. Some societies get along without it just fine, while others that do subscribe to this principle are despotic tyrannies nonetheless.
Wouldn't it be cool to see how many pre-industrial flying machine designs would or wouldn't work on Mars?
A Leonardo da Vinci design that you can get a kit for.
Or how about one of these things?
'Course, there might be a shortage of lumber on Mars, what with the lack of trees and all. We'd have to be sure to bring lots of supplies.
Use the excellent rsync from Paul Makerras (of pppd fame) and Andrew Tridgell (samba team) in combination with OpenSSH and SSH for windows (both based on Tatu Ylonen's work; OpenSSH is maintained by and expert team including Markus Friedl and the recently monkey-cracked Dug Song, among others).
Set up your accounts to rsync-upload changes to whichever server is most secure when you log out, and use a cron job on that server to rsync-download to all the other servers nightly. You can make a tar backup part of the system also.
You will have to remember what's going on so you don't modify the same file differently on two different systems within 24 hours. If you want to overcome that shortcoming by making this work on an immediate sync basis rather than periodically, you'll need something like SGI's fam (included with recent linux distros) to trigger the updating processes.
You should already be 90% there if you have your ssh keys set up for passwordless login. Passwordless PKI logins are not significantly less secure than passworded logins in most situations (granted hostile system management can get you, but the BOFH can trojan your login anyway).
Lots of people use this technique to sync CVS trees over slow links. Rsync is very efficient for that kind of thing (large volume of files, low number of changed bytes).
Go to WWW.google.com and type this in:
napoleonic code "guilty until proven innocent"
You will find that many, many countries use this premise. It works because of the way the rest of the system is structured.
I can't force you to understand or believe anything, and it appears that most respondents to my post are unwilling to do the most cursory investigation of any statement that contradicts their unwarranted prejudices.