1. OSes are not the only things doing crypto. In fact they usually do it only as extra functionality. 2. Linux is a major OS in the security-sphere and it is not "build in the US". Some of the people involved in it are US residents, that is all. 3. The focus on commercial products is misleading. For example, OpenSSL is not a commercial product, but more important than most/all commercial cypto. 4. Much crypto made by US companies is actually not implemented in the US.
I think he was trying to sell a thinly camouflaged lie for propaganda purposes. But I fully agree on your conclusion. In fact I know of European companies that are already looking for domestic replacements for US products, specifically because of the threat of US backdoors. Implementing crypto well is hard, but not that hard and there are plenty of people outside of the US that can do it well.
Well, banks all over the world use it for the most critical transactions. But since all the money is electronic, I guess in some sense it is "theoretical money" and banking is a "theoretical business".
You misunderstand. Nobody with an actual clue claimed the device violates known physics (there are a lot of clueless morons in the discussion whenever "magic" devices are the subject though), the claim is that the theory of operation offered by the creators of the device violates known physics and that does make the explanation exceptionally unlikely to be true.
As this new paper now shows, it seems no known physics is violated, there is just some tiny extension of it that is consistent with what was already known. Unlike the bogus explanation of the EM drive creators, this paper is actually science as it should be done: Observe an effect that is surprising and then carefully search for an explanation. Here they carefully searched for a way that something could escape from the device and generate the trust, which is what any competent physicist would have expected right from the start. And it seems they found something.
What does tenure have to do with it? You become a Physicist when obtaining a Ba or Ma in the field. You become a scientist when obtaining a PhD. This person has one. It is immaterial what you do after.
No. And if you were able to use Google, you would have found very fast that this is a specialization in Physics: "Multiphysics treats simulations that involve multiple physical models or multiple simultaneous physical phenomena." Or are you implying a simulation expert physicist working at a software firm suddenly loses his credentials? That would be even more stupid.
Well, if they are right then something good came from this thing after all. This is also the first explanation that at least sounds as it could hold water.
To give you an idea, while there is a full sun-mass equivalent of energy in the wave, it gets spread over a sphere-surface with a radius of 1 billion light-years. There is almost nothing left when the wave arrives and these cataclysmic events are rare enough that we will likely not be getting a nearer one anytime soon. The current observations only work because the detectors have been refined and refined when they failed to find anything before. They are incredibly sensitive now.
More like "who needs tests" in this case. Test management is a bit overblown for a simple small script. (At least that is what I would use. And I would send it out via a relay and check what is in the queue before activating that relay. Of course, I may just be overly cautious.)
You do have a point of course. Skimping on testing, test management and developer skills is about as stupid as if firing the sysadmins because "everything is working well".
The reason some people revert to terrorism-type attacks is that it is basically impossible to prevent them. Not even full-blown fascism can prevent terrorism. Of course, the surveillance-fanatics and the police does not want anybody to realize that, as such attacks are the things that allow them to push for even less freedom, even more surveillance and and even worse police-state.
Terrorism is something society has to live with, as trying to prevent it (for example in the utterly moronic form of a "war on terror") is futile and makes the problem worse.
This is a basic coding mistake made worse by a set of basic testing mistakes. The state of practical IT is truly amazingly bad when mistakes like these are made routinely. Does not instill any confidence in this specific group of people either.
That is something bureaucrats do routinely. They define how the world works, after all, not you or any pesky "facts". It is no surprise that if these people get enough power, a society invariably collapses.
I disagree. I think most kids do exactly understand the difference between a fictional character, a pet, a computer program and another human being. Sure, kids may love and respect a pet very much, but they will still know it is a pet and different in its capabilities from a human and needs to be treated differently. They may get attached to a cartoon character or other fantasy entity, but they will still know what it is and treat it as what it is. As to a computer program, unless tricked very cleverly, they will understand that it is a machine and they will treat it as such.
That many adults do not respect fantasies or pets does not mean that children, who may valuate them differently, do not understand their nature. This whole thing is a typical overblown fear of clueless parents. They should instead be glad that their child has found some toy to pour part of its energies into.
Indeed. Which adds an extra layer of complexity to this: The people doing this must know that in the past similar campaigns have been based on direct lies.
In other words, they claim to be doing vigilantism. This is never good, even if it hits somebody deserving. It is an illegal act for good reasons as the mechanisms are far too easy to abuse and it is extremely hard to defend against that.
In this case, it is also an appeal to emotion, which makes abusing it even easier. The only thing they will achieve this way is a split in the community. That of course raises the question if that was the aim all along.
Slashdot Mirror
1. OSes are not the only things doing crypto. In fact they usually do it only as extra functionality.
2. Linux is a major OS in the security-sphere and it is not "build in the US". Some of the people involved in it are US residents, that is all.
3. The focus on commercial products is misleading. For example, OpenSSL is not a commercial product, but more important than most/all commercial cypto.
4. Much crypto made by US companies is actually not implemented in the US.
I think he was trying to sell a thinly camouflaged lie for propaganda purposes. But I fully agree on your conclusion. In fact I know of European companies that are already looking for domestic replacements for US products, specifically because of the threat of US backdoors. Implementing crypto well is hard, but not that hard and there are plenty of people outside of the US that can do it well.
That is actually the formal academic definition.
Well, banks all over the world use it for the most critical transactions. But since all the money is electronic, I guess in some sense it is "theoretical money" and banking is a "theoretical business".
Hehehehe, nice.
For example, AES is a Belgian design. The US has long since lost leadership in this. That is if they ever had it.
Incidentally, when did US TLAs catch any terrorists "coordinating via encryption" the last time? Oh, right, NEVER.
You misunderstand. Nobody with an actual clue claimed the device violates known physics (there are a lot of clueless morons in the discussion whenever "magic" devices are the subject though), the claim is that the theory of operation offered by the creators of the device violates known physics and that does make the explanation exceptionally unlikely to be true.
As this new paper now shows, it seems no known physics is violated, there is just some tiny extension of it that is consistent with what was already known. Unlike the bogus explanation of the EM drive creators, this paper is actually science as it should be done: Observe an effect that is surprising and then carefully search for an explanation. Here they carefully searched for a way that something could escape from the device and generate the trust, which is what any competent physicist would have expected right from the start. And it seems they found something.
What does tenure have to do with it? You become a Physicist when obtaining a Ba or Ma in the field. You become a scientist when obtaining a PhD. This person has one. It is immaterial what you do after.
No. And if you were able to use Google, you would have found very fast that this is a specialization in Physics: "Multiphysics treats simulations that involve multiple physical models or multiple simultaneous physical phenomena." Or are you implying a simulation expert physicist working at a software firm suddenly loses his credentials? That would be even more stupid.
Well, if they are right then something good came from this thing after all. This is also the first explanation that at least sounds as it could hold water.
To give you an idea, while there is a full sun-mass equivalent of energy in the wave, it gets spread over a sphere-surface with a radius of 1 billion light-years. There is almost nothing left when the wave arrives and these cataclysmic events are rare enough that we will likely not be getting a nearer one anytime soon. The current observations only work because the detectors have been refined and refined when they failed to find anything before. They are incredibly sensitive now.
You think starting a civil war is a good idea? While I am agnostic, I really hope there is some good approximation of "Hell" for people like you.
More like "who needs tests" in this case. Test management is a bit overblown for a simple small script. (At least that is what I would use. And I would send it out via a relay and check what is in the queue before activating that relay. Of course, I may just be overly cautious.)
You do have a point of course. Skimping on testing, test management and developer skills is about as stupid as if firing the sysadmins because "everything is working well".
Hahahha, funny. How are prison sentences going to stop a suicide attacker? But I guess that logic is beyond your tiny mind.
The reason some people revert to terrorism-type attacks is that it is basically impossible to prevent them. Not even full-blown fascism can prevent terrorism. Of course, the surveillance-fanatics and the police does not want anybody to realize that, as such attacks are the things that allow them to push for even less freedom, even more surveillance and and even worse police-state.
Terrorism is something society has to live with, as trying to prevent it (for example in the utterly moronic form of a "war on terror") is futile and makes the problem worse.
This is a basic coding mistake made worse by a set of basic testing mistakes. The state of practical IT is truly amazingly bad when mistakes like these are made routinely. Does not instill any confidence in this specific group of people either.
Naa, that would be professional and efficient use of taxpayer money. The military is not in the habit of doing that.
You are confused. That is not how things work.
That is something bureaucrats do routinely. They define how the world works, after all, not you or any pesky "facts". It is no surprise that if these people get enough power, a society invariably collapses.
I am sure the, ahem, "people", that do this think this is perfectly reasonable.
In a police-state, that does only apply to the police. A citizen is guilty if the police says so.
I disagree. I think most kids do exactly understand the difference between a fictional character, a pet, a computer program and another human being. Sure, kids may love and respect a pet very much, but they will still know it is a pet and different in its capabilities from a human and needs to be treated differently. They may get attached to a cartoon character or other fantasy entity, but they will still know what it is and treat it as what it is. As to a computer program, unless tricked very cleverly, they will understand that it is a machine and they will treat it as such.
That many adults do not respect fantasies or pets does not mean that children, who may valuate them differently, do not understand their nature. This whole thing is a typical overblown fear of clueless parents. They should instead be glad that their child has found some toy to pour part of its energies into.
Not credible, but obviously something you really believe. Fail on both count.
There is a good reason hearsay is not admitted as evidence in any functioning legal system. It is just far too often wrong.
Indeed. Which adds an extra layer of complexity to this: The people doing this must know that in the past similar campaigns have been based on direct lies.
In other words, they claim to be doing vigilantism. This is never good, even if it hits somebody deserving. It is an illegal act for good reasons as the mechanisms are far too easy to abuse and it is extremely hard to defend against that.
In this case, it is also an appeal to emotion, which makes abusing it even easier. The only thing they will achieve this way is a split in the community. That of course raises the question if that was the aim all along.