madez

82 ms·

781.
by madez 9y ago
The title claims than Venezuela's situation shows that democracy can be lost. That is akin to saying that a car crash shows that strong enough forces can bend metal. That would be a bad title, because we know that metal can be bend by
782.
by madez 9y ago
Given the precedents, the title of the article is bad.
783.
by madez 9y ago
A recursion is a cycle in the graph of function calls. Decomposing a problem into functions is something else.
784.
by madez 9y ago
No, you did not read the article. You claim all scientists in the article were male scientists, while in fact one is female.
785.
by madez 9y ago
I know what I'm writing is kind of superfluous, but not all vegans are like that. There are vegans who try not to disclose the fact of them living vegan.
786.
by madez 9y ago
If it would reveal secret capabilities (or illegal procedure), the NSA does not reveal their information.
787.
by madez 9y ago
Then the regulations need to have a mechanism to be updated in the case of new knowledge. If the regulations have no process to be updated then that is a more fundamental problem to solve. After all, Debian is set to give the process of cha
788.
by madez 9y ago
The solution seems straight forward. Okay with being eavesdropped? Do it unencrypted. Not okay with being eavesdropped? Use not broken cryptography.
789.
by madez 9y ago
It might be fun and surprising to come up with seemingly unsolveable problems in math, but it isn't actually that hard. Especially if you come from the angle of computer science. Math does not have common tools I'm aware of to dea
790.
by madez 9y ago
This reminds of how people react when someone says hes vegan. Quite a few people react negatively to it, even when there was no evangelism occurring but just plain stating. It seems to be insecurity.
791.
by madez 9y ago
That might sound unfair, but that doesn't make it necessarily wrong. There are also things that are intuitive, but wrong. We can reason and overrule our intuition.
792.
by madez 9y ago
I think this is so because they are based on the archaic principle of guilt and redemption, and not an ethical system that considers the well-being of everybody involved.
793.
by madez 9y ago
You don't need to proof anything to raise questions. The comment didn't claim anything, it was just a sceptical one. We should cheer those.
794.
by madez 9y ago
Doing your own encryption does clearly not exclude also using other encryption. Or is implementing AES already not anymore doing your own encryption, because AES wasn't invented by you? You _always_ use work of others. Doing your own c
795.
by madez 9y ago
Just look at the major used crypto libraries and their CVE's. Everybody gets it wrong. I consider that a sane and sound assumption. But then you can combine stuff as I've for example written in another comment to roll your own cry
796.
by madez 9y ago
We are talking in vague terms, but assume you want to encrypt some offline data. - You can just use any recommended (by whom?) tool. - Or you encrypt it with recommended tool with it's own dedicated key. Then you encrypt it again by wh
797.
by madez 9y ago
You are wrongly assuming I say to throw away the work of others. I never said so.
798.
by madez 9y ago
You can do crypto as a side-hobby and safely put it into production. Of course, you can also do it wrong, but it is with little work possible to do it correctly. Normally I wouldn't speak against what you said because the critique is o
799.
by madez 9y ago
I'm not part of any strike force and I activly dislike envangelism. Still, I like this website very much.
800.
by madez 9y ago
No. I only proved that the logic in the upper post was not sound. You make out of that what you want.
801.
by madez 9y ago
There was no reason given for the deprecation of BTRFS.
802.
by madez 9y ago
Tulips were sold for ridiculous prices, yet nobody used them.
803.
by madez 9y ago
Maybe let's first specify what we are talking about. With trusting trust I mean a chicken and egg problem: To verify a computer you need another computer you trust. But then, how would you verify the other computer? How would this be p
804.
by madez 9y ago
This is a great step for trusted computing for individuals.
805.
by madez 9y ago
The trusting trust issue is solveable. Also, the deeper you go the more powerful you assume your adversary. If you limit the power of your adversary, you can stop before going fully back to a root of trust you can verify without a computer.
806.
by madez 9y ago
I wonder why they didn't go for an easy technique to defend against backdoors: use two independent sources for random numbers that don't know of each other and xor their output together. The increase in cost is small and the win f
807.
by madez 9y ago
Depending where you live, there are likely laws prohibiting communication in public about sexuality (think graphically explicit pictures where accessible to children, think non-standard sexual expression), politics (think inciting hate agai
808.
by madez 9y ago
Thanks for pointing this out. I like projects of this sort, but imagine they could start with the original source code.
809.
by madez 9y ago
This reminds that we need more open source games. There are old games I would love to play again, especially after the community has fixed the biggest pain points. Why can't we have open and free games? Why not atleast after commercial
810.
by madez 9y ago
Why wouldn't we build a vehicle that can drive on streets, on rails, can fly, swim and dig through the earth? It would be a marvellous construction. And awful engineering. I'm not blaming the person who builds the machine in the e

More ›