Seems like it will continue - despite any ruling. Look at the overall indicators and trend, not just one specific ruling or data point.
But if it happens, a lawyer can now point to this ruling, which states that searching the contents of a mobile phone without warrant during an arrest is almost always illegal, and that any evidence coming from the phone is inadmissable. Which means that evidence that the police _might_ have found in another way is now inadmissable.
What problem do you see with open source software? If there is a legal requirement that software behaves in certain ways, then that is independent of whether it is open source or not. The only difference is that with open source, you might be able to veryify that the mandated behaviour is there.
Of course, open source software that behaves according to some law can be modified by anyone with the source code and the necessary expertise to break that law. If creating such software is illegal, then the person doing it would do something illegal. But that has nothing to do really with open source.
I'm not the only sentient being here right? I mean, OK, what's the aim of patents? To give incentivize folks to release technology and ideas into the public domain with monopoly protections. FLOSS should be exempt from patents because it directly meets the goal of patents without desiring any damn monopoly at all.
That's completely wrong. The maker of proprietary technology is given monopoly protection for making the invention public. If Open Source were allowed to copy that technology then the incentive would be largely gone.
Take Xerox with their extremely successful copying technology. Any competitor could have made a copy of their Xerox copier as long as the software inside was open source? Or Xerox' largest competitors could have developed that software together and buried Xerox?
You don't need to patient open source software to protect it from patent trolls. you just write it and release it to the public. it then becomes prior art which invalidates any later patents.
The tactics of patent trolls is not to sue you and win a lawsuit, it is to sue you or threaten to sue, in the hope that you cough up money in order for them to go away. Prior art doesn't help there; they can sue you no matter how inane or obvious the patent is, and no matter how much prior art there is. You still have to spend money on lawyers and courts.
Well, I HATE this software argument about patents as, to be honest, EVERYTHING can be described as mathematics.
It's really just an argument used by lazy thinkers. They don't want software patents (with good reasons, because there is a huge number of software patents that are in my opinion obvious), they read that maths is not patentable, so they shout "software is maths, so it is not patentable". There are a few huge problems with it:
1. You can of course claim that all software is maths, and call everyone stupid who doesn't believe it, but that doesn't make it true. If someone says "it is a mathematical function", I say "show me the function". Which never happens.
2. Mathematical formulas cannot be patented because that would forever (or several years) completely block the use of that function for anything. However, even if a program is a mathematical function, the slightest change to that program creates a very much different mathematical function.
3. Here's the big one, probably a bit hard to understand: When laws are created, the law makers want to achieve some effect, and pick the words for the law that seem best to achieve that effect. If you then find out that the words don't actually mean what the lawmakers thought they mean, the result is not that the effect of the law changes, but that the wording of the law changes. For example, if people made laws concerning vegetables and wanted tomatoes included but didn't realise that tomatoes are a fruit and not a vegetable, that would just mean that the wording of the law is going to change. If you convince lawmakers that software isn't patentable because it is maths, but the lawmakers want software to be patentable, they will just change the wording of the law. So nothing would be achieved.
Can a computer interpret it? If it can, then it's maths, because all a computer can do is manipulate symbols [caltech.edu], which is maths. If, of course, it can't be interpreted by a computer, it may not be maths.
Circular argument, and therefore not acceptable. You are saying all software is maths, therefore all software is maths. I'm saying computers are not maths, therefore the printf call isn't maths. Just as valid as your argument (which means not at all).
The problem is that you can easily make a claim "this is maths", but you will find it impossible to show the actual maths. You say "it is maths". I say "if it is maths, then _show_ me the maths. " If you can't show me the maths, then either it isn't maths, or it doesn't matter because maths that you can't show me doesn't exist.
No, the point is that anyone who has ever touched the insides of a computer knows that everything is a collection of ones and zero that are manipulated by mathematical functions.
Nonsense. There are no mathematical functions in my Mac. There are lots of voltages and currents and semiconductors, but not a single mathematical function.
Isn't code already math? Any algorithm can be implemented on a Turing machine, which is a mathematical construct.
Any invention is made up of a large number of atoms, which interact with each other according to the laws of quantum physics. Since quantum physics is not patentable, nothing is patentable. Right?
And actually, not every algorithm _can_ be implemented on a Turing machine for two reasons: 1. A Turing machine running a program can only either stop in a zero state, stop in a one state, or run forever. That's not really very useful. 2. A Turing machine can not be implemented for most algorithms because the Turing program would be so huge that it couldn't be represented with all the atoms in the world.
This is exactly how the market is supposed to work. Where once there was one eBook provider, there are now four major providers. Apple is not even the biggest one! How can that be a monopoly or even a trust?
You forgot that Apple is eeevil. And Google isn't, so Google is right. Sorry, we are talking about Amazon. Amazon isn't Apple, so Amazon isn't evil, so Amazon is right. And Kindle uses Android which is free so Kindle doesn't use DRM. Well, it isn't DRM because it works on all Kindles. But Apple uses AAC for music which is proprietary and evil and DRM. Even though the A's don't stand for Apple but for Advanced and Audio and there is no DRM, but it is Apple and Apple is evil.
The number of primes less than N is about N / ln (N).
If you pick a random integer around N, the chance that it is a prime number is about 1 / ln (N). If you pick an odd number, the chance is about 2 / ln (N).
Now if you pick an odd number x, then the chance that x is prime is about 2 / ln (x), the chance that x + 2 is prime is also about 2 / ln (x), both are not quite independent (if x is not divisible by 3, then x + 2 is more likely divisible by 3, same for 5, 7 etc. ), but the chance that (x, x+2) is a twin prime pair is roughly 1 / (ln (x))^2.
The sum of (1 / ln (x))^2 over all even integers x diverges; if you sum it for all x less than N then the sum is more than N / (ln (N)^2, which diverges.
Something similar is true for every pattern like (x, x+2, x+6), or whatever pattern you choose, except for those patterns where it is obvious that these primes can't exist, like (x, x+2, x+10), where one of the three numbers must be divisible by 3.
Proving it is of course an entirely different matter.
However, if there are infinitely many pairs of primes with a gap less than 70,000,000 then at least one of the possible gaps must come up an infinite amount of times (because 70 million times a finite number is still finite).
So if you take the (x, x+2) conjecture aka twin prime conjecture, the (x, x+4) conjecture, the (x, x+6) conjecture and so on, which are _all_ assumed to be true, then we now know that at least one of them _is_ indeed true. There is a K 70,000,000 such that there are infinitely many pairs of primes (x, x + K).
Yes, it's more like this: Imagine if you took a sack of marbles and spread them infinitely thin, you'd expect that the distance between any two marbles to also grow to infinity. This is proof that primes are not like this, no matter how thin they're spread they'll cluster in pairs less than 70 million apart. The conjencture is that you'll always find another pair 2 units apart (like 5 and 7, 11 and 13 etc.) no matter how big the numbers get.
It would of course depend on _how many_ marbles there are and _how thin_ they are spread. In the case of prime numbers, there are still so many of them that we _expect_ two that are close together from time to time.
The number of primes
If you pick a random integer around N, the chance that it is a prime number is about 1 / ln (N). If you pick an odd number, the chance is about 2 / ln (N). Now if you pick an odd number x, then the chance that x is prime is about 2 / ln (N), the chance that x + 2 is prime is about 2 / ln (N), both are not quite independent (if x is not divisible by 3, then x + 2 is more likely divisible by 3, same for 5, 7 etc. ), but the chance that (x, x+2) is a twin prime pair is roughly 1 / (ln (x))^2.
The sum of (1 / ln (x))^2 over all even integers x diverges; if you sum it for all x
The same is true for every pattern like (x, x+2, x+6), or whatever pattern you choose, except for those patterns where it is obvious that these primes can't exist, like (x, x+2, x+10), where one of the three numbers must be divisible by 3.
Proving it is of course an entirely different matter. However, if there are infinitely many pairs of primes with a gap
So if you take the (x, x+2) conjecture aka twin prime conjecture, the (x, x+4) conjecture, the (x, x+6) conjecture and so on, which are _all_ assumed to be true, then we now know that at least one of them _is_ indeed true.
Nope, it is true. Consider only the prime pairs. There are, we now know, no gaps larger than 70 million. Add the rest of the prime numbers and there can still be no gaps larger than 70 million.
Blatant nonsense. Not only has someone already posted how to find 70 million consecutive non-primes, but it has been long proven that the number of primes less than N is about N / ln (N) (the ratio of number of primes = exp (70,000,000) the _average_ gap between primes is more than 70,000,000.
Why would I want to put my Media in that particular folder?
You wouldn't. The "Add to iTunes" folder is the API to add files to iTunes. For example, if you download music from Amazon, Amazon's downloader puts the files there.
To add files to iTunes yourself, you drag the files on the running app.
Want to see other bad ideas from the UN, look up their Perma-Culture. While the concept is proven and helpful, try to going to poor people barely growing enough food and convince them to go 4 year with below normal crops in hopes that 7 years from now you will have a bumper crop...oh, yeh, then through in a drought every 7 years and see how much this idea helps.
I thought that was some Stalin-era invention that worked once by coincidence because it was tried in a year with otherwise perfect growing conditions, and then never ever worked again (but nobody would argue with a boss who had Stalin's nod).
If your code reviews are not improving the code, maybe the process is not a good one. Maybe you want to share how you guys do it?
Here's a benefit that we get at my place: Quite often you are under pressure as a developer to get stuff done, even if the code isn't as good as you want. Then comes code review: If you are not happy with your code, created under time pressure, you pick the right reviewer, it gets rejected, and you have all the time to do it right:-)
No, Apple removes the maximum number of tries for the password with an 'update' and runs a brute force from 0000 to 9999.
Most be the world's most boring job. Having an iPhone and typing in all codes from 0000 to 9999. And when you're done and found the code, there are a few hundred more iPhones to keep you busy for the next four months (that's where the four month backlog comes from).
If you design the product correctly, then it only takes a few seconds to tell law enforcement, "We lack the ability. Even the NSA lacks the ability. Give us a hundred billion dollars and we might be able to do one phone every hundred billion years." The fact that there's a backlog, shows that Apple screwed up big time, to the point of shocking negligence. Having them bear the expensive of the mistake might be the best incentive for them to fix the next version of the iPhone.
What method would you suggest that makes encryption protected by a four digit passcode virtually unbreakable?
If Apple is deluged with requests for what is, most likely, a free service they offer is there any doubt they won't.make it easier for law enforcement/Apple by either offering CSI labs 'DIY' kits OR training an AppleGenius at each store to do it on-demand?
It seems that to be able to get close enough to the encrypted data to start brute forcing the key, you need to get into the device in ways that require Apple's private keys. That's something that Apple wouldn't hand out to anyone, not CSI or an AppleGenius. I don't know how Apple handles it exactly, but I've read Microsoft's documentation how that kind of key is supposed to be handled (software developer locked into a room and from time to time the manager pushes some sandwiches through the gap under the door), so there is no bloody way these keys would ever leave Apple.
You can shift the balance a bit by iterating the calculation which produces a key from the pin code. A million iterations would probably be acceptable from a user experience perspective, but that would only reduce the required number of digits from 39 to 33.
Apple does that; the number of iterations is set so that it takes an iPhone about 100 milliseconds to try out one key, about the maximum that the user won't notice.
This is absolute proof that they have your encryption key on file somewhere. Others have already verified that they do indeed use AES 128.
If that is "absolute proof" to you, then you are the worst idiot posting here ever. There's a four digit passcode by default, which is what most people, including most criminals and most crime suspects will be using. There's no need to break AES 128 when all you need is try out 10,000 different passcodes.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps they are legally required to have a warrant, but there's no punishment to them if they just ignore that restriction.
There is, once something goes to court and someone gets set free because evidence is not admissable due to an illegal search.
That might be the most worrying thing, it actually makes sense! Sure to be overturned on appeal!
Have a look who made that ruling. Then come back and tell us who would overturn this.
Seems like it will continue - despite any ruling. Look at the overall indicators and trend, not just one specific ruling or data point.
But if it happens, a lawyer can now point to this ruling, which states that searching the contents of a mobile phone without warrant during an arrest is almost always illegal, and that any evidence coming from the phone is inadmissable. Which means that evidence that the police _might_ have found in another way is now inadmissable.
What problem do you see with open source software? If there is a legal requirement that software behaves in certain ways, then that is independent of whether it is open source or not. The only difference is that with open source, you might be able to veryify that the mandated behaviour is there.
Of course, open source software that behaves according to some law can be modified by anyone with the source code and the necessary expertise to break that law. If creating such software is illegal, then the person doing it would do something illegal. But that has nothing to do really with open source.
I'm not the only sentient being here right? I mean, OK, what's the aim of patents? To give incentivize folks to release technology and ideas into the public domain with monopoly protections. FLOSS should be exempt from patents because it directly meets the goal of patents without desiring any damn monopoly at all.
That's completely wrong. The maker of proprietary technology is given monopoly protection for making the invention public. If Open Source were allowed to copy that technology then the incentive would be largely gone.
Take Xerox with their extremely successful copying technology. Any competitor could have made a copy of their Xerox copier as long as the software inside was open source? Or Xerox' largest competitors could have developed that software together and buried Xerox?
You don't need to patient open source software to protect it from patent trolls. you just write it and release it to the public. it then becomes prior art which invalidates any later patents.
The tactics of patent trolls is not to sue you and win a lawsuit, it is to sue you or threaten to sue, in the hope that you cough up money in order for them to go away. Prior art doesn't help there; they can sue you no matter how inane or obvious the patent is, and no matter how much prior art there is. You still have to spend money on lawyers and courts.
Isn't all software maths, and therefore not patentable, or does that not apply to open source software?
It really is simple. Software is mathematics because all software can be expressed as mathematical formulas, therefore it can't be patented.
Here's a bit of software:
printf ("Hello, world\n");
Now you write the formula. Let's see how simple it is.
Well, I HATE this software argument about patents as, to be honest, EVERYTHING can be described as mathematics.
It's really just an argument used by lazy thinkers. They don't want software patents (with good reasons, because there is a huge number of software patents that are in my opinion obvious), they read that maths is not patentable, so they shout "software is maths, so it is not patentable". There are a few huge problems with it:
1. You can of course claim that all software is maths, and call everyone stupid who doesn't believe it, but that doesn't make it true. If someone says "it is a mathematical function", I say "show me the function". Which never happens.
2. Mathematical formulas cannot be patented because that would forever (or several years) completely block the use of that function for anything. However, even if a program is a mathematical function, the slightest change to that program creates a very much different mathematical function.
3. Here's the big one, probably a bit hard to understand: When laws are created, the law makers want to achieve some effect, and pick the words for the law that seem best to achieve that effect. If you then find out that the words don't actually mean what the lawmakers thought they mean, the result is not that the effect of the law changes, but that the wording of the law changes. For example, if people made laws concerning vegetables and wanted tomatoes included but didn't realise that tomatoes are a fruit and not a vegetable, that would just mean that the wording of the law is going to change. If you convince lawmakers that software isn't patentable because it is maths, but the lawmakers want software to be patentable, they will just change the wording of the law. So nothing would be achieved.
Can a computer interpret it? If it can, then it's maths, because all a computer can do is manipulate symbols [caltech.edu], which is maths. If, of course, it can't be interpreted by a computer, it may not be maths.
Circular argument, and therefore not acceptable. You are saying all software is maths, therefore all software is maths. I'm saying computers are not maths, therefore the printf call isn't maths. Just as valid as your argument (which means not at all).
The problem is that you can easily make a claim "this is maths", but you will find it impossible to show the actual maths. You say "it is maths". I say "if it is maths, then _show_ me the maths. " If you can't show me the maths, then either it isn't maths, or it doesn't matter because maths that you can't show me doesn't exist.
No, the point is that anyone who has ever touched the insides of a computer knows that everything is a collection of ones and zero that are manipulated by mathematical functions.
Nonsense. There are no mathematical functions in my Mac. There are lots of voltages and currents and semiconductors, but not a single mathematical function.
Isn't code already math? Any algorithm can be implemented on a Turing machine, which is a mathematical construct.
Any invention is made up of a large number of atoms, which interact with each other according to the laws of quantum physics. Since quantum physics is not patentable, nothing is patentable. Right?
And actually, not every algorithm _can_ be implemented on a Turing machine for two reasons: 1. A Turing machine running a program can only either stop in a zero state, stop in a one state, or run forever. That's not really very useful. 2. A Turing machine can not be implemented for most algorithms because the Turing program would be so huge that it couldn't be represented with all the atoms in the world.
This is exactly how the market is supposed to work. Where once there was one eBook provider, there are now four major providers. Apple is not even the biggest one! How can that be a monopoly or even a trust?
You forgot that Apple is eeevil. And Google isn't, so Google is right. Sorry, we are talking about Amazon. Amazon isn't Apple, so Amazon isn't evil, so Amazon is right. And Kindle uses Android which is free so Kindle doesn't use DRM. Well, it isn't DRM because it works on all Kindles. But Apple uses AAC for music which is proprietary and evil and DRM. Even though the A's don't stand for Apple but for Advanced and Audio and there is no DRM, but it is Apple and Apple is evil.
Do I get modded up now?
Bloody html.
The number of primes less than N is about N / ln (N).
If you pick a random integer around N, the chance that it is a prime number is about 1 / ln (N). If you pick an odd number, the chance is about 2 / ln (N).
Now if you pick an odd number x, then the chance that x is prime is about 2 / ln (x), the chance that x + 2 is prime is also about 2 / ln (x), both are not quite independent (if x is not divisible by 3, then x + 2 is more likely divisible by 3, same for 5, 7 etc. ), but the chance that (x, x+2) is a twin prime pair is roughly 1 / (ln (x))^2.
The sum of (1 / ln (x))^2 over all even integers x diverges; if you sum it for all x less than N then the sum is more than N / (ln (N)^2, which diverges.
Something similar is true for every pattern like (x, x+2, x+6), or whatever pattern you choose, except for those patterns where it is obvious that these primes can't exist, like (x, x+2, x+10), where one of the three numbers must be divisible by 3.
Proving it is of course an entirely different matter.
However, if there are infinitely many pairs of primes with a gap less than 70,000,000 then at least one of the possible gaps must come up an infinite amount of times (because 70 million times a finite number is still finite).
So if you take the (x, x+2) conjecture aka twin prime conjecture, the (x, x+4) conjecture, the (x, x+6) conjecture and so on, which are _all_ assumed to be true, then we now know that at least one of them _is_ indeed true. There is a K 70,000,000 such that there are infinitely many pairs of primes (x, x + K).
Yes, it's more like this: Imagine if you took a sack of marbles and spread them infinitely thin, you'd expect that the distance between any two marbles to also grow to infinity. This is proof that primes are not like this, no matter how thin they're spread they'll cluster in pairs less than 70 million apart. The conjencture is that you'll always find another pair 2 units apart (like 5 and 7, 11 and 13 etc.) no matter how big the numbers get.
It would of course depend on _how many_ marbles there are and _how thin_ they are spread. In the case of prime numbers, there are still so many of them that we _expect_ two that are close together from time to time.
The number of primes If you pick a random integer around N, the chance that it is a prime number is about 1 / ln (N). If you pick an odd number, the chance is about 2 / ln (N). Now if you pick an odd number x, then the chance that x is prime is about 2 / ln (N), the chance that x + 2 is prime is about 2 / ln (N), both are not quite independent (if x is not divisible by 3, then x + 2 is more likely divisible by 3, same for 5, 7 etc. ), but the chance that (x, x+2) is a twin prime pair is roughly 1 / (ln (x))^2.
The sum of (1 / ln (x))^2 over all even integers x diverges; if you sum it for all x The same is true for every pattern like (x, x+2, x+6), or whatever pattern you choose, except for those patterns where it is obvious that these primes can't exist, like (x, x+2, x+10), where one of the three numbers must be divisible by 3.
Proving it is of course an entirely different matter. However, if there are infinitely many pairs of primes with a gap
So if you take the (x, x+2) conjecture aka twin prime conjecture, the (x, x+4) conjecture, the (x, x+6) conjecture and so on, which are _all_ assumed to be true, then we now know that at least one of them _is_ indeed true.
Nope, it is true. Consider only the prime pairs. There are, we now know, no gaps larger than 70 million. Add the rest of the prime numbers and there can still be no gaps larger than 70 million.
Blatant nonsense. Not only has someone already posted how to find 70 million consecutive non-primes, but it has been long proven that the number of primes less than N is about N / ln (N) (the ratio of number of primes = exp (70,000,000) the _average_ gap between primes is more than 70,000,000.
Why would I want to put my Media in that particular folder?
You wouldn't. The "Add to iTunes" folder is the API to add files to iTunes. For example, if you download music from Amazon, Amazon's downloader puts the files there.
To add files to iTunes yourself, you drag the files on the running app.
Exactly. Once more, this German court has confirmed that Germany has no freedom of speech.
Your signature is wrong. You _are_ a complete idiot.
Want to see other bad ideas from the UN, look up their Perma-Culture. While the concept is proven and helpful, try to going to poor people barely growing enough food and convince them to go 4 year with below normal crops in hopes that 7 years from now you will have a bumper crop...oh, yeh, then through in a drought every 7 years and see how much this idea helps.
I thought that was some Stalin-era invention that worked once by coincidence because it was tried in a year with otherwise perfect growing conditions, and then never ever worked again (but nobody would argue with a boss who had Stalin's nod).
If your code reviews are not improving the code, maybe the process is not a good one. Maybe you want to share how you guys do it?
Here's a benefit that we get at my place: Quite often you are under pressure as a developer to get stuff done, even if the code isn't as good as you want. Then comes code review: If you are not happy with your code, created under time pressure, you pick the right reviewer, it gets rejected, and you have all the time to do it right :-)
No, Apple removes the maximum number of tries for the password with an 'update' and runs a brute force from 0000 to 9999.
Most be the world's most boring job. Having an iPhone and typing in all codes from 0000 to 9999. And when you're done and found the code, there are a few hundred more iPhones to keep you busy for the next four months (that's where the four month backlog comes from).
If you design the product correctly, then it only takes a few seconds to tell law enforcement, "We lack the ability. Even the NSA lacks the ability. Give us a hundred billion dollars and we might be able to do one phone every hundred billion years." The fact that there's a backlog, shows that Apple screwed up big time, to the point of shocking negligence. Having them bear the expensive of the mistake might be the best incentive for them to fix the next version of the iPhone.
What method would you suggest that makes encryption protected by a four digit passcode virtually unbreakable?
If Apple is deluged with requests for what is, most likely, a free service they offer is there any doubt they won't.make it easier for law enforcement/Apple by either offering CSI labs 'DIY' kits OR training an AppleGenius at each store to do it on-demand?
It seems that to be able to get close enough to the encrypted data to start brute forcing the key, you need to get into the device in ways that require Apple's private keys. That's something that Apple wouldn't hand out to anyone, not CSI or an AppleGenius. I don't know how Apple handles it exactly, but I've read Microsoft's documentation how that kind of key is supposed to be handled (software developer locked into a room and from time to time the manager pushes some sandwiches through the gap under the door), so there is no bloody way these keys would ever leave Apple.
You can shift the balance a bit by iterating the calculation which produces a key from the pin code. A million iterations would probably be acceptable from a user experience perspective, but that would only reduce the required number of digits from 39 to 33.
Apple does that; the number of iterations is set so that it takes an iPhone about 100 milliseconds to try out one key, about the maximum that the user won't notice.
This is absolute proof that they have your encryption key on file somewhere. Others have already verified that they do indeed use AES 128.
If that is "absolute proof" to you, then you are the worst idiot posting here ever. There's a four digit passcode by default, which is what most people, including most criminals and most crime suspects will be using. There's no need to break AES 128 when all you need is try out 10,000 different passcodes.