arde

Still Windows-only. Too bad the author didn't take the opportunity of rewriting it into portable code.

> appears to be in closed beta with March 31st 2017 cited as the target release date

More like April 1st, IMO.

I think you missed a key word there so the meaning is lost. Is it "far from trivial" or "far more trivial"? You also surely meant stopping, not stooping.

Besides, it would not be useful to trigger reset or deletion because LEOs could take a backup before the procedure.

Mine was a bit more procedural, if that's what you were looking for:

  awk '{l++;gsub("!","");t[1]=4;t[4]=2;t[9]=3;o=$1;for(i=2;i<=NF;i++){o=o " " $i (i==t[l]?"!":"")};print o}' war_and_peace.txt

Running a click farm instead of editing the database would be the sensible thing to do when trying to keep the operation secret. That way, people inside FB would not know about the fraud.

That's a strawman, a tu-quoque and an ad hominem. Try arguments instead of fallacies. If possible, arguments that don't ignore decades of knowledge accumulated by software engineering, such as the need for low coupling and high cohesion.

I think we systemd despisers are barking at the wrong tree. We already know Poettering's social and technical abilities (or lack thereof). And we must recognize his right to write whatever crap he wants. Focusing on systemd or on Poettering is useless to us. The only people who should get our vitriol are the ones that chose (and keep choosing) to use systemd in such main distributions as Red Hat and Ubuntu despite its known defective design and lack of safety measures. I want those people's names being known and remembered by the community, and I want them to stand up to their harmful decisions and I want them to change those decisions or step aside otherwise. It is quite late for that but this can be changed and should be changed right now, and such a change has already done once with Upstart (which was bad enough to run away from too, BTW).

> - No replaceable battery

Here's hoping the Note 7 fiasco teaches something to the phone manufacturers regarding the convenience of replaceable batteries.

Indeed. But that doesn't mean MBTI is really meaningless, only that there are better models.

Considering the planet has two hemispheres, no, it's not correlated.

HP has just bought the Samsung printer business. That's one less choice if you want to simply stop buying HP printers. If HP is allowed to keep doing its dirty tricks (sneaky firmware updates and all) then things are only going to get worse.

The Scientific American article [1] cited as first reference in the paper is quite interesting.

[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-ch...

Curiously he singled out D-wave as an example of other people who made the same mistake the author supposedly makes. But since then, quite recently in fact, I read that the D-wave quantum computer has finally been recognized to really speed up calculations as it should if it were indeed a quantum computer. I wonder to what extent that could invalidate Aaronson's criticism.

Thanks for the info. I absolutely agree with you there. It may have a place with fast-evolving, short-lived or highly distributed technologies, but it's not conducive to solving problems - it just enables to avoid them when they're not serious enough.

What will they be using instead?

> No one is going to be making 3D storefronts.

This is right there with visionary phrases such as "640KB is enough". Probably not going to happen next year though.

Furthermore, there's a mistake there. The plant name is not written "maté", which would be pronounced mah-TEH, but "mate", and it's pronounced MAH-teh.

Well, I read that the current system for self-driving cars by Google relies on a lot of data from Google (i.e., its system does not purely work through in-car sensors). So if Google decided to pull the plug on that data, or even if they stopped keeping the data current, we'd be in precisely that scenario.

Linux works fine.

Flabbergast seems to have the right idea, but its lack of examples is a problem. Its only example is based around Apache Aurora (who in hell uses that and wtf it is I don't know, and I don't really want to learn that just to understand an example). This hasn't changed since it was first announced, so I don't think I'll take another look at it for quite a while unless I come by some reasonable howto.

This would be a great phone app.

Cue pirate drones stealing cargo.

Argentina.

Repeating a flawed argument does not make it more logical. See my comment above, repeat as necessary.

Windows XP was not audited, and it's been full of bugs since day one, with new vulnerabilities every month, year after year. And it has a huge attack surface. That's hardly comparable to TrueCrypt.

TrueCrypt WAS audited and yes there is a risk of some serious vulnerability being found in the future, but at least we know there's none known for now (not publicly, at least).

That same risk, that some serious vulnerability could be found in the future, also affects all other existing encryption products, since none have been formally demonstrated to be secure.

If I can migrate today to a different product, then I can just prepare to migrate in the future but stay with TrueCrypt until such vulnerability is found, if it ever is. There is, after all, the possibility that none will be found, and it's more likely that none will be found in TrueCrypt than it is in other non-audited products. Why should I switch now?

And why would it be better today to use a product that has not been audited so far but is supposedly still being supported, instead of using one that HAS been audited even if it has been abandoned? Furthermore, currently supported products could be abandoned tomorrow too, or worse: their support could be deficient in the future.

I acknowledge that your argument has some well known heavyweights backing it. Bruce Schneier mentioned this risk about TrueCrypt recently, and then he went to recommend some closed-source solution based on its creator's good vibes. Tom Ptacek also resorted to this newfangled "vibe" method in one of his comments in this very thread. I fail to see the point in all this. Maybe I'm missing something, but I find such reasonings specious.

Edit: grammar.

Exactly. Action is imperative, not functional.

Why didn't he mention the Netherlands?

I meant its configuration and maintenance is more error prone. Certificates may expire without renewal, for example. I've seen port knocking work without a flaw for over ten years in a row, and the SSH configuration is shorter and almost never changes (unless it is to change the cipher or the user).

I agree with what you say regarding the APT scenario, port knocking is mostly useless there. It wouldn't be an effective camouflage in that case, and one probably has bigger problems than a hypothetical OpenSSH zero-day then.

I'm not aware of any available plugboard proxy solution, so it would have the added complication of hacking it together. That's what I meant. And there are diminishing returns there: a non-criptographic port knocking scheme with a few packets could be good enough as a camouflage in many cases. But I still find it to be a time saver in the more general case (not APT). I think having cleaner logs is worth using this simple trick then.