Indeed. It is really fascinating how many people are unable to understand this basic idea. Explains a lot about the abysmally bad state of software security though. It also proves (again) that people who trust in authority are rather limited in their mental functions as there is absolutely no rational base for this. In fact, rationality rather strongly suggests the opposite is smart.
And you point is? If you desire to be recognized as a smart-ass, congratulations, you have established that you are. Only a smart-ass talks absolutes in a discussion like this.
Actually, it is very much about who performs it. "Processes" are basically useless in making anything secure.
And who said anything about "philosophical" or "mathematical"? You are barking up the wrong tree entirely. The arguments are economical and psychological.
Get a converter from SATA and a Banana-Pi. The Raspberry Pi is designed by incompetents with huge egos and is basically the worst choice on the market.
Opening it is only one step that _must_ be done to make it secure. It is necessary, but not sufficient. Hence for those too limited to understand implications, it is
"closed == insecure" and "open == secure or insecure"
You have misunderstood the implication. It is "closed source" => "insecure". It is not "open source" => "secure". These are two different things. You can never (in practice and under usual economic border conditions) make closed source secure. On the other hand, while you must make it open in order for it to be possibly secure, you must do other things in addition.
Really, get a grip on basic logic and stop claiming bullshit.
Another stupid comment by people that do not understand the difference between a "necessary condition" and a "sufficient condition".
Open-sourcing the software/firmware in question is a necessary thing. That means it must be done. It is not a sufficient condition. That means it is not enough. It still must be done, but other things must be done in addition to get the desired outcome.
It is almost as if people do not understand basic logic anymore. No surprise so many things in the IT space get screwed up badly these days.
Indeed. These morons also completely overlook that much old tech does not go away, but gets used in addition to new tech. Like paper does not look to ever become obsolete, just used less for some applications. Or the blackboard. When I want to sketch something, I use paper or a modernized version of the blackboard, named a whiteboard. Forget any and all "tablet" applications for that, too bad image, too bad UI, slow, need backup, etc. Paper and the whiteboard are almost perfect and no electronic thing will be that for the next few decades.
Well, mine is not "loud, expensive or bulky". It has significant speed advantages. It runs a lot more than a web-browser or Office. You would not know, because you obviously are talking out of your backside.
Until security levels have been improved enough that such attacks become very rare, the law is completely unsuitable as a tool here. The law can catch the odd outlier that thinks rules of society does not apply to him/her, but that is it. The current situation is like everybody leaving their car keys in the ignition all the time and then demanding harsher laws to stop the frequent car thefts. That can obviously not work.
And people like you are a huge part of the problem. No, this is not some irrelevant side-show and hopes of people not eventually fucking up completely are entirely misplaced. This is the thing that still has a good chance of sterilizing this planet. The weapons are around and ready to use. The safeguards are not really better, as the fully insane military mind-set places destruction of the enemy above survival.
The human race has failed to do it so far, but a lot of criminally insane politicians and military "leaders" are hard at work to make us achieve that end-point eventually. If the stupidity, the arrogance, the paranoia and the insanity of basically all leaders is as strong in every civilization, it is really no surprise no older ones seem to be around.
Seriously, if security is this pathetic, the only laws needed are ones that put hefty fines on the companies responsible and on the individuals that are responsible for the screw-up in the company, like CEOs that did not do their job.
PC gaming does not need to be propped up and it never has needed it. Consoles are still limited special-purpose devices that do not do most things a PC or do them badly. PCs can not only be gaming machines, they are still general-purpose computers with general-purpose OSes. And they can be much more powerful than consoles, just as desired by the owner. They have a far better user interface. And the time where consoles have been programmed to fit the raw hardware are long over. It does make sense these days to develop for Console and PC at the same time. It can also make sense to develop PC-only to get around the limitations consoles have and always will have. But it makes no sense at all with regards to technology to develop console-only.
The nature of the PC appeals to enough people that PC gaming will stay around until some really fundamental change (not what the press calls "fundamental" these days, but a real game-changer), and consoles will not be what replaces the PC.
First, it was mainframes that were insecure. When they were finally secured, the same mistakes were repeated with workstations. Then the same mistakes were repeated with PCs. Now they are repeated with mobile phones and with cars. Next they will be repeated with IoT.
The problem is that most people are completely unable to learn from experiences made by others, and so they repeat the same stupid mistakes whenever there is a new application field. The experts are available and could do better, but they do not get used, because all the bright-eyed "innovators" do not have a clue what they are doing.
He bought the FDA approval for a specific manufacturing process given in the past. The company that now steps in found a loophole, managed to acquire an older approval for a different process or managed to get approval for their way of making it.
The problem here is really that the FDA does not give generic approvals to generica. That allows this type of evil fuckery in the first place. But what can you expect from a bureaucracy...
All these algorithms are exponential for optimal solutions. (Well, unless P=NP, but that looks more and more unlike all the time. And even if it was true, high-exponent polynomial is not really better in practice anyways.) Hence _nobody_ uses the algorithms for optimal solutions in practice. What is used are approximation algorithms that provide a good solution, and there the quality measure is not "speed", but speed vs. result quality.
This may be nice theoretical research, but the practical impact is rather non-existent.
Slashdot Mirror
And an inflated ego in addition to being a moron. Fascinating.
The hallmark of a truly small mind.
Indeed. It is really fascinating how many people are unable to understand this basic idea. Explains a lot about the abysmally bad state of software security though. It also proves (again) that people who trust in authority are rather limited in their mental functions as there is absolutely no rational base for this. In fact, rationality rather strongly suggests the opposite is smart.
And you point is? If you desire to be recognized as a smart-ass, congratulations, you have established that you are. Only a smart-ass talks absolutes in a discussion like this.
Actually, it is very much about who performs it. "Processes" are basically useless in making anything secure.
And who said anything about "philosophical" or "mathematical"? You are barking up the wrong tree entirely. The arguments are economical and psychological.
Get a converter from SATA and a Banana-Pi. The Raspberry Pi is designed by incompetents with huge egos and is basically the worst choice on the market.
No. "closed" => "almost sure not secure".
Opening it is only one step that _must_ be done to make it secure. It is necessary, but not sufficient.
Hence for those too limited to understand implications, it is
"closed == insecure" and
"open == secure or insecure"
You have misunderstood the implication. It is "closed source" => "insecure". It is not "open source" => "secure". These are two different things. You can never (in practice and under usual economic border conditions) make closed source secure. On the other hand, while you must make it open in order for it to be possibly secure, you must do other things in addition.
Really, get a grip on basic logic and stop claiming bullshit.
Another stupid comment by people that do not understand the difference between a "necessary condition" and a "sufficient condition".
Open-sourcing the software/firmware in question is a necessary thing. That means it must be done. It is not a sufficient condition. That means it is not enough. It still must be done, but other things must be done in addition to get the desired outcome.
It is almost as if people do not understand basic logic anymore. No surprise so many things in the IT space get screwed up badly these days.
Indeed. These morons also completely overlook that much old tech does not go away, but gets used in addition to new tech. Like paper does not look to ever become obsolete, just used less for some applications. Or the blackboard. When I want to sketch something, I use paper or a modernized version of the blackboard, named a whiteboard. Forget any and all "tablet" applications for that, too bad image, too bad UI, slow, need backup, etc. Paper and the whiteboard are almost perfect and no electronic thing will be that for the next few decades.
Well, mine is not "loud, expensive or bulky". It has significant speed advantages. It runs a lot more than a web-browser or Office. You would not know, because you obviously are talking out of your backside.
Until security levels have been improved enough that such attacks become very rare, the law is completely unsuitable as a tool here. The law can catch the odd outlier that thinks rules of society does not apply to him/her, but that is it. The current situation is like everybody leaving their car keys in the ignition all the time and then demanding harsher laws to stop the frequent car thefts. That can obviously not work.
And people like you are a huge part of the problem. No, this is not some irrelevant side-show and hopes of people not eventually fucking up completely are entirely misplaced. This is the thing that still has a good chance of sterilizing this planet. The weapons are around and ready to use. The safeguards are not really better, as the fully insane military mind-set places destruction of the enemy above survival.
The human race has failed to do it so far, but a lot of criminally insane politicians and military "leaders" are hard at work to make us achieve that end-point eventually. If the stupidity, the arrogance, the paranoia and the insanity of basically all leaders is as strong in every civilization, it is really no surprise no older ones seem to be around.
Couldn't agree more. Pathetic-level security must have severe consequences for both the company and the company officials responsible.
Seriously, if security is this pathetic, the only laws needed are ones that put hefty fines on the companies responsible and on the individuals that are responsible for the screw-up in the company, like CEOs that did not do their job.
PC gaming does not need to be propped up and it never has needed it. Consoles are still limited special-purpose devices that do not do most things a PC or do them badly. PCs can not only be gaming machines, they are still general-purpose computers with general-purpose OSes. And they can be much more powerful than consoles, just as desired by the owner. They have a far better user interface. And the time where consoles have been programmed to fit the raw hardware are long over. It does make sense these days to develop for Console and PC at the same time. It can also make sense to develop PC-only to get around the limitations consoles have and always will have. But it makes no sense at all with regards to technology to develop console-only.
The nature of the PC appeals to enough people that PC gaming will stay around until some really fundamental change (not what the press calls "fundamental" these days, but a real game-changer), and consoles will not be what replaces the PC.
Good. So this type of evil is actually not going to become widespread.
First, it was mainframes that were insecure. When they were finally secured, the same mistakes were repeated with workstations. Then the same mistakes were repeated with PCs. Now they are repeated with mobile phones and with cars. Next they will be repeated with IoT.
The problem is that most people are completely unable to learn from experiences made by others, and so they repeat the same stupid mistakes whenever there is a new application field. The experts are available and could do better, but they do not get used, because all the bright-eyed "innovators" do not have a clue what they are doing.
Stop trolling. It is unbecoming and makes you look stupid.
He bought the FDA approval for a specific manufacturing process given in the past. The company that now steps in found a loophole, managed to acquire an older approval for a different process or managed to get approval for their way of making it.
The problem here is really that the FDA does not give generic approvals to generica. That allows this type of evil fuckery in the first place. But what can you expect from a bureaucracy...
You seem to be confusing people.
All these algorithms are exponential for optimal solutions. (Well, unless P=NP, but that looks more and more unlike all the time. And even if it was true, high-exponent polynomial is not really better in practice anyways.) Hence _nobody_ uses the algorithms for optimal solutions in practice. What is used are approximation algorithms that provide a good solution, and there the quality measure is not "speed", but speed vs. result quality.
This may be nice theoretical research, but the practical impact is rather non-existent.
They can be, they are just hard to read without compiling them first. It is called LaTeX.
There is a difference between Unicode and ASCII-extensions. A rather large one, in fact.