Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Queen Elizabeth Sets a Code-Breaking Challenge

samzenpus posted about 3 years ago | from the we-like-a-challenge dept.

Education 132

mikejuk writes "Queen Elizabeth II has made her first ever visit to Bletchley Park, the home of the UK's World War II code-breaking efforts and now a museum. To mark the occasion, the Queen has issued a code cracking challenge of her own — 'the Agent X Code Book Challenge' — aimed at getting children interested in cryptography. Perhaps a royal programming or general technology challenge is next."

cancel ×

132 comments

Obligatory: (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36797374)

God Save the Queen [youtube.com]

Re:Obligatory: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36797406)

I'm Australian and what is this?

Re:Obligatory: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36799424)

I'm Australian and what is this?

It matters not. She is your queen!

Re:Obligatory: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36797422)

Awww, no HTML5 version for the flashless? I'm missing out...

Recruiting? (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about 3 years ago | (#36797424)

Everyone knows that the Royal Family has close links to Torchwood. Perhaps this is a recruitment drive. (count me out, I'll be buggered if I work with Captain Jack)

Re:Recruiting? (4, Funny)

2muchcoffeeman (573484) | about 3 years ago | (#36797510)

Yeah, you and everyone else that works there.

Re:Recruiting? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 3 years ago | (#36797564)

I'll be buggered if I work with Captain Jack

Indeed.

On a similar note, I notice that the TARDIS /. uses to represent UK news is still the wrong color.

Re:Recruiting? (4, Informative)

stupid_is (716292) | about 3 years ago | (#36797826)

errr - that's not a tardis (hope this isn't a "swoosh" moment, it's a regular old-style public phone box (booth). You don't see them about much, although a while back an enterprising sculptor put a dozen together like this [blogspot.com] and flogged it to my local council for several tens of thousands of quid.

The tardis is supposed to be a police telephone box, which has a different design and colour like this [wikipedia.org] . These boxes also contained equipment other than a phone - such as a first aid kit and an incident book.

On a last pedantic note, there were red police boxes [wikipedia.org] in Glasgow, Scotland, for a time.

Tardis shape shifting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36798508)

Sorry, All Tardi have a chameleon circuit that allows them to change form. Doctor Who and the Master's Tardi have been several different shapes. At one time Doctor Who's Tardis WAS a red phone both. But the day that it turned into a Blue Police Box the chameleon circuit broke and it has been a Police Box ever since. By the way I have just finished renovating my kitchen and i designed and built the pantry door to look like a red british phone booth. Glad to see Torchweed back on TV. Shown on Starz tv network in US and Space TV in Canada (Saturday nights).

thanks... (1)

domulys (1431537) | about 3 years ago | (#36798858)

http://xkcd.com/859/ [xkcd.com]

Post the missing ')' and hopefully I'll be able to sleep tonight.

Re:thanks... (1)

stupid_is (716292) | about 3 years ago | (#36799086)

oops - my bad. ")"

Re:Recruiting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36797598)

I'll be buggered if I work with Captain Jack)

Correct, you will be.

Re:Recruiting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36797608)

If you worked with Captain Jack you probably would be . . .

Re:Recruiting? (1)

Kangburra (911213) | about 3 years ago | (#36797762)

I'll be buggered if I work with Captain Jack

Ever the optimist! :-)

The Queen can suck my cock (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36797428)

...which could be pretty good if she takes her teeth out first

Secret Code Answer... (2)

bradorsomething (527297) | about 3 years ago | (#36797432)

All I got was:

"Hellooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo"

when I translated the answer.

Re:Secret Code Answer... (2)

Spacezilla (972723) | about 3 years ago | (#36797472)

Thank you for at least not making the same old Ovaltine joke.

Re:Secret Code Answer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36799822)

Drink more Twinings?

Re:Secret Code Answer... (1)

SEWilco (27983) | about 3 years ago | (#36800074)

Thank you for at least not making the same old Ovaltine joke.

There is no old Ovaltine. We were all commanded to drink it by our secret overlords.

Re:Secret Code Answer... (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 years ago | (#36797586)

All I got was: "Hellooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo" when I translated the answer.

You used the wrong salt. The correct answer is: "We are NOT amused."

Re:Secret Code Answer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36797674)

Salt is so last century. I prefer the natural flavor of hash.

Re:Secret Code Answer... (2)

c0mpliant (1516433) | about 3 years ago | (#36798442)

Salt my hash please. Otherwise the rainbow will get me!

Re:Secret Code Answer... (1)

Professr3 (670356) | about 3 years ago | (#36797720)

Did the "hellooooooo" continue on the back of the card and end in a phone number?

no to hacking for cops (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36797466)

she basically knows no one is helping them like they used to cause they keep extraditing all the peeps that can do anything.

the intellectual side of WWII (5, Informative)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about 3 years ago | (#36797496)

Bletchley Park appears to be safe for now. Here are some previous Slashdot headlines:

2011
Queen Elizabeth Sets a Code-Breaking Challenge
Tunny Code-Breaker Rebuilt At Bletchley Park
Campaign Saves Unique Turing Archive
EDSAC Computer To Be Rebuilt

2010
Fight Begins To Secure Turing Papers For Bletchley Park Museum
'Retro Programming' Teaches Using 1980s Machines
UK Gov't Spending Details Now Online

2009
Bletchley Park WWII Staff Finally Recognized
No Museum Status For UK Home of Enigma Machine
Old Computers Resurrected As Instruments At Bletchley Park

2008
Cash Lifeline For Bletchley Park
PGP Leads Corporate Efforts To Save Bletchley Park
Bletchley Park Faces Financial Rescue
Bletchley Park Facing Financial Ruin

While I realize one cannot have every building associated with victory in WWII saved, it is nice to see recognition of the intellectual side of it. Are there more dedicated sites of this kind around the world?

Re:the intellectual side of WWII (5, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | about 3 years ago | (#36797614)

It is good to hear isn't it?

Finally the old place is getting some attention. I've been there a couple of times now. it's a great old place, it was important for the war, and it's something of a spiritual home for the computer.

Colossus may not have been the very first (there was a german machine?) and it was certainly kept secret for far too long after the war, but some lasting good leaked out of it through Turing's papers. It was one of a series of false starts that slowly, eventually led us here.

Of course the pioneer, the early bright light of our field was hounded to death for being gay, a man who had saved many lives and sped the end of the war. If there is one thing that should tell us homophobia is *bad* this is it.

Re:the intellectual side of WWII (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36797652)

(there was a german machine?)

The Zuse Z1. Not that it was put to anything like the use Colossus was...

Re:the intellectual side of WWII (1)

Captain Hook (923766) | about 3 years ago | (#36798056)

Of course the pioneer, the early bright light of our field was hounded to death for being gay, a man who had saved many lives and sped the end of the war. If there is one thing that should tell us homophobia is *bad* this is it.

Indeed, he commited suicide with Cyanide, besides his body was a half eaten apple which it is speculated was how turing took the Cyanide although the apple itself was never tested.

It is rumoured that the original Apple Computers logo, a rainbow colored Apple with a bite taken out of it was a reference to this but I don't think it's every been confirmed one way or another by anyone who would have known for sure.

Re:the intellectual side of WWII (1)

hackertourist (2202674) | about 3 years ago | (#36798096)

Unlikely. The original Apple logo was an elaborate drawing of Newton sitting under an apple tree. That evolved into just the apple symbol (white, then rainbow-colored, then white again).

Re:the intellectual side of WWII (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | about 3 years ago | (#36798338)

The original Apple logo was an elaborate drawing of Newton sitting under an apple tree

for us lazy slashdotters: click here for the logo [wikimedia.org]

Re:the intellectual side of WWII (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 3 years ago | (#36799852)

Unlikely. The original Apple logo was an elaborate drawing of Newton sitting under an apple tree. That evolved into just the apple symbol (white, then rainbow-colored, then white again).

Besides which, rainbow-coloured stripes were a very common design motif in the 1970s. Even Activision (who were founded at the end of the decade) had rainbow stripes in the original version of their logo! The gay rights movement may have felt it somewhat appropriate, but they weren't the only people using it at the time, and I doubt that was the primary connotation when Apple first chose the rainbow logo.

It's like how people associate chucka-wucka guitar basslines with porn- because porn first rose to prominence during the 70s when that was a relatively common musical style (albeit one that suited porn quite well). Had it arrived in the 1980s, it's likely we'd associate synthesisers with porn instead.

Re:the intellectual side of WWII (1)

deains (1726012) | about 3 years ago | (#36798652)

I think Jobs refuted that rumour a while back. Would be pretty clever/awesome if it was actually true though.

Re:the intellectual side of WWII (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36798164)

Colossus may not have been the very first (there was a german machine?)

There is another.

Re:the intellectual side of WWII (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36798670)

.... it was certainly kept secret for far too long after the war ...

One of the things that I lerned from the Bletchley Park museum that I didn't already know, was the fact that they continued selling enigma derived machines to various governments around the world until the 70s - they have some examples in the collection. The fact that GCHQ could break them was probably considered worth keeping secret.

Re:the intellectual side of WWII (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36798254)

Bah Bletchly Park - what did they ever do for the war effort? - Every one knows The Americans broke the Enigma code by raiding U51!

Re:the intellectual side of WWII (1)

cavreader (1903280) | about 3 years ago | (#36798824)

I know you are trolling but it was not the US or England who made the biggest contributions to understanding enigma. It was 3 Polish scientists who had gotten hold of an Enigma machine when Germany was only using it for securing business activities. The scientists were able to get the machine and their research results into English hands just days before they were conquered. England rightfully deserves credit for their work but the Polish were responsible for giving them a substantial head start.

Re:the intellectual side of WWII (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36799668)

I thought the computational machines used where also of a polish design. Seem the Poles were quite advanced in the field of crypto in the 30's

Re:the intellectual side of WWII (1)

standbypowerguy (698339) | about 3 years ago | (#36798506)

Are there more dedicated sites of this kind around the world?

Yes there are, but in those countries, if they show them to you, they have to kill you.

Re:the intellectual side of WWII (1)

deains (1726012) | about 3 years ago | (#36798656)

Actually, they'll just encrypt your brain.

She's lookin' pretty good these days... (0)

mark_elf (2009518) | about 3 years ago | (#36797504)

I'd hit it like a retard on a drumset.

Re:She's lookin' pretty good these days... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36797810)

erratically for a minute or two, then you'd wander off?

Re:She's lookin' pretty good these days... (1)

bberens (965711) | about 3 years ago | (#36799652)

That's what she said.

Re:She's lookin' pretty good these days... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36799864)

Isn't that how everyone hits it pretty much? I mean, professional porn stars aside.

the next Alan Turing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36797532)

fjsdkfljsdfkj13482394mfkldjcfkasufiequri32uri

don't spend too much time trying to crack the above code. It was created by my pet chimpanzee.......

Re:the next Alan Turing? (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | about 3 years ago | (#36797580)

the first line of "The Tragedy of King Lear"?

GCHQ staff in UK schools seeking 'future spies' (0)

AHuxley (892839) | about 3 years ago | (#36797558)

The UK has long lost it White Russian and ~ww2/cold war mass draft like testing generation to find needed languages.
So the GCHQ will reach out to schools with "ambassadors" to make maths, crypto ect. seem fun and help with languages of long term national interest like Russian and Arabic.
GCHQ staff teach 'future spies' in schools (March 2011) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12675368 [bbc.co.uk]
A challenge just builds on a basic need for finding the next generation of gifted young people. Getting them young also allows better filtering and testing for a future "Katharine Gun".
GCHQ translator cleared over leak http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3485072.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Enigma (2001) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36797578)

Today I watched Enigma (2001) starring Kate Winslet, Saffron Burrows, and a bunch of Brits most Americans won't recognize.

The DVD transfer is *terrible* but the movie is definitely worth watching.

Re:Enigma (2001) (1)

leenks (906881) | about 3 years ago | (#36797828)

Except, in true American film style, it takes extreme liberties with the facts. It wasn't even filmed at Bletchley Park either - which was criminal IMO (supposedly Bletchley Park didn't look enough like Bletchley Park so they used Chicheley Hall instead).

Re:Enigma (2001) (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about 3 years ago | (#36798026)

Some of the scenes were shot at the Royal Gunpowder Mills in Waltham Abbey, which during the war was actually used for the production of RDX (used in bouncing bombs).

It became EDRE Waltham Abbey and then PERME Waltham Abbey after the war. Final stage its life it became RARDE Waltham Abbey in 1984, until it closed in 1991. The site was actually in use for over 300 for the production of explosives or research in to them.

Re:Enigma (2001) (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about 3 years ago | (#36798256)

Except, in true American film style, it takes extreme liberties with the facts. It wasn't even filmed at Bletchley Park either - which was criminal IMO (supposedly Bletchley Park didn't look enough like Bletchley Park so they used Chicheley Hall instead).

Secret identity?

Saw it on the news (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 3 years ago | (#36797706)

Apparently the operations at Bletchley were so secret that during the war Princess Elizabeth (as she then was) didn't even know they existed.

She was probably considered a security risk due to all those German relatives.

Re:Saw it on the news (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 3 years ago | (#36797772)

Much like the President of the US. At most he'll be around only for 8 years as the head of the Armed Forces... Can't afford to tell him everything, so he's just kept safe unless that's not on the agenda...

Additionally, other than Zaphod-Beeblebroxism I can't understand why the US places so much importance on their president... They can't even make laws -- Wouldn't it be better if the pres actually served in an armed force prior to election as chief commander?

At least royalty has "royal blood", and congress or parliament can make laws when they need to -- It seems that presidents truly are being elected for no other reason than their distractive capabilities...

RIP D. Adams

Re:Saw it on the news (1)

black soap (2201626) | about 3 years ago | (#36798606)

Additionally, other than Zaphod-Beeblebroxism I can't understand why the US places so much importance on their president... They can't even make laws -- Wouldn't it be better if the pres actually served in an armed force prior to election as chief commander?

No, that's not likely to lead to any sort of elitism or discrimination.....

Re:Saw it on the news (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 3 years ago | (#36799016)

No, that's not likely to lead to any sort of elitism or discrimination.....

Yea, god for bid we run that slight risk rather than have someone in office that actually know how the miltary works.

WTF kind of illogical thought pattern gets you to the point that you think the guy in charge of an organization should be the guy who knows absolutely nothing at all about it?

Its should be a legal requirement to have served in the armed forces in order to be president.

Re:Saw it on the news (1)

black soap (2201626) | about 3 years ago | (#36799266)

Maybe we should have the Commander in Chief be a civilian position, as the founders intended? Maybe we should read more than one Heinlein novel? Maybe we should learn to spell before posting /. comments?

Re:Saw it on the news (1)

TheLink (130905) | about 3 years ago | (#36799842)

No, I don't really see much benefit from that.

I propose that a referendum is mandatory before a country starts any "offensive military action" (genuine defence is different).

If the referendum does not pass (say 66% of _total_ eligible_ voters must vote for war), all the political leaders that proposed the military action are put on death-row, and at a convenient time another referendum is held.

If that second "redemption" referendum does not pass, those political leaders are executed.

If it later turns out the military action was a actually a very good idea, the executed political leaders get "purple heart" awards, everyone makes nice remarks about them and a few tears are shed.

If it later turns out that a "defensive war" was not actually defence, or enough people believe the leaders tricked them into the war, there is another referendum and the leaders are put on death row, etc etc.

With my proposal our leaders can still lead soldiers into battle in this modern day and age. And they are far more believable when they claim the war is necessary and worth the lives and cost (and worth killing masses on the other side too) - because they put their own lives on the line first.

The other benefit is the side being attacked can with a clearer conscience wipe out your country by whatever means necessary - civilians and all. Hey most of you voted for the war right? So you're no longer mere civilians dragged into an unwanted war by your leaders.

This seems much fairer and better to me.

Re:Saw it on the news (1)

standbypowerguy (698339) | about 3 years ago | (#36799364)

I can't understand why the US places so much importance on their president... They can't even make laws --

No, they can't make laws. But they can and do veto the laws that Congress makes, so they have considerable political influence. They also control the federal government's executive branch, so they and the cabinet ministers under them wield substantial real power, up to the limits imposed by the constitution and enacted law.

Wouldn't it be better if the pres actually served in an armed force prior to election as chief commander?

I don't think so. Despite the fact that it would help immensely for the C in C to have first-hand military experience, it would also exclude a whole pool of folks who for whatever reason haven't served in the military. The founding fathers got this right. The only two constitutional restrictions for presidential candidates a native-born citizen at least 35 years of age.

Re:Saw it on the news (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about 3 years ago | (#36798046)

British government has always operated under the concept of "need to know", she didn't need to know, so she wasn't told. Her father, on the other hand, may have known. The monarch has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn, the heir apparent doesn't.

Re:Saw it on the news (2)

MattBecker82 (1686358) | about 3 years ago | (#36798472)

OT but Princess Elizabeth was never heir apparent. As with all female heirs to the British throne, she was heir presumptive, as in theory she could have moved down the order of succession if a younger brother had come along. Notwithstanding that this would have been unlikely given her mother's age (52 at the time of QE2's succession).

Isn't male-preference primogeniture wonderful?

Re:Saw it on the news (1)

DagdaMor (518567) | about 3 years ago | (#36798556)

Princess Elizabeth was never the Heir Apparent as there was always possiblilty of a son taking her place, so she was only Heir Presumptive.

Re:Saw it on the news (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 3 years ago | (#36798724)

Fair point, I suppose a driver in the ATS didn't need to know things like that. But if one doodlebug had landed in a different place...

Re:Saw it on the news (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 3 years ago | (#36798422)

Apparently the operations at Bletchley were so secret that during the war Princess Elizabeth (as she then was) didn't even know they existed.

She was probably considered a security risk due to all those German relatives.

But what possible reason could she have had for needing to know about Bletchley Park?

Credit where credit's due... (0)

Jimbob The Mighty (1282418) | about 3 years ago | (#36797744)

How lovely. Has she paid her respects to Alan Turing yet?

Re:Credit where credit's due... (3, Informative)

Psychotria (953670) | about 3 years ago | (#36797792)

How lovely. Has she paid her respects to Alan Turing yet?

Umm yes. In the linked video.

Seventh code answer... (1, Insightful)

FTL (112112) | about 3 years ago | (#36797750)

Basically it's a two-bit finite state machine and a pair of lookup tables.

"Can you list all the 16 countries of which her majesty is the queen?"

Re:Seventh code answer... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36797834)

Wow, you solved a puzzle aimed at 12 year olds. Would you like some cake?

Re:Seventh code answer... (2)

Erbo (384) | about 3 years ago | (#36797874)

Wow, you solved a puzzle aimed at 12 year olds. Would you like some cake?

I understand that this offer may not be entirely the truth.

Re:Seventh code answer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36798912)

Hmm, certainly, as you know [insert Portal reference here].

Re:Seventh code answer... (1)

symes (835608) | about 3 years ago | (#36798326)

I would imagine posting anything like a puzzle on slashdot would attract attention and get solved fairly quickly, whether it is for 4 year olds or at the other extreme and devilishly difficult. Those of us who like to solve puzzles do so because we enjoy solving puzzles, not for the prospect of cake.

Re:Seventh code answer... (1)

CraftyJack (1031736) | about 3 years ago | (#36799436)

I enjoy solving puzzles, but I'm not gonna turn down cake.

Re:Seventh code answer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36798386)

Thanks a lot for spoiling the fun of the kids that the contest is actually intended for.
Thanks a lot for enabling script kidiies (google kiddies, really) to run away with the reward without actually understanding why.

Re:Seventh code answer... (1)

kyz (225372) | about 3 years ago | (#36798496)

Wow, you're good at this. Next task: can you decode this one [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Seventh code answer... (1)

GrahamCox (741991) | about 3 years ago | (#36798516)

I bet you're a bundle of fun at kids' parties.

To tell or not to tell the plaintext, that is the (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36797758)

The royal code has been broken. The resulting plaintext is an admission that the real author of "shakespearean" stage works was Edward de Vere, the 16th Earl of Oxford, first-born illegitimate son of Queen Elisabeth I, who incestously fathered the Earl of Southampton, "Fair Youth" of the sonnets, with her mother.

The code challenge and the riddle was meant to pre-empt the screening of Anonymous, an autumn-bound movie of Roland Emmerich which uncovers the truth behind de Vere of Stratford-upon-Arden and the amateur actor of Stratford-upon-Avon, named William Shakespeare, who fronted for him.

Re:To tell or not to tell the plaintext, that is t (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36797880)

And I claim that I can burrow through an elephant.

Maybe do Math and balance Budget instead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36797782)

Find Banksters, string up? No?

Such a pity (0)

Psychotria (953670) | about 3 years ago | (#36797784)

That Alan Turing was not recognised for his achievements before he was, basically, condemned to death by that same government/monarchy.

Re:Such a pity (1)

leenks (906881) | about 3 years ago | (#36797830)

Same monarchy (though basically puppets now), but definitely not the same Government.

Re:Such a pity (4, Informative)

dave420 (699308) | about 3 years ago | (#36798086)

It was the government. The monarchy had nothing to do with it.

Re:Such a pity (0)

tomhudson (43916) | about 3 years ago | (#36799518)

It was the government. The monarchy had nothing to do with it.

You obviously read neither the article, nor the source it linked to. [royal.gov.uk]

To mark Her Majesty's visit to Bletchley Park, The Queen has issued a Code Book Challenge to schoolchildren.

Notice the site: royal.gov.uk. The official site of the British monarchy.

When asked to comment on your post, the Queen reportedly said "We are not amused."

Decoding not Decyphering... (2)

ItsIllak (95786) | about 3 years ago | (#36797786)

Not to take away from it, as I think it's a nice way of raising the profile of Bletchley Park among young mathematicians, but it's decoding as you're given the code-book.

Good news!? (4, Insightful)

Aceticon (140883) | about 3 years ago | (#36797796)

In the middle of the recent fallout from the discovery of the abuses that happened during the credit bubble years (banker bonuses, press abuses, police corruption, cozy relations between politicians and the press), the Royal Household seems to be one of the few institutions that's coming out as squeaky clean.

So with a bit of luck, actions by the Queen might have a little more impact in public opinion than they would during the "time-of-excesses".

So even though I'm neither a royalist nor a british citizen, I welcome and applaud anything that might portray to kids the notion that technology is cool - they've been too long enthralled by dreams of being footballers or TV celebrities.

Re:Good news!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36798084)

The royal family "coming out of it clean" includes interfering with due process, attempting to use the heating budget for poor homes, and throwing a freedom of information cloak over meetings with government? What about grasping more executive power on the quiet without regard for the people's constitutional wishes? Service staff working at minimum wage rates?

Re:Good news!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36798356)

the Royal Household seems to be one of the few institutions that's coming out as squeaky clean.
What!? Surely you jest. Your definition of "squeaky clean" is dirtier than Monica Lewinsky's dress whenever she "worked" at the Whitehouse.

Re:Good news!? (1)

OttoM (467655) | about 3 years ago | (#36798540)

... and to promote that technology is cool, let's call in the help of the most uncool person in the world: QE II.

Re:Good news!? (1)

heathen_01 (1191043) | about 3 years ago | (#36799046)

That statement is demonstrably false.

Re:Good news!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36798996)

So with a bit of luck, actions by the Queen might have a little more impact in public opinion than they would during the "time-of-excesses".

You know, you may be right. I think she has better chances to make more impact on the kids than both Obama and Bush have had.

Irrelevant news (1)

Chemisor (97276) | about 3 years ago | (#36799688)

These days nobody cares what the Queen does. They do, however, notice when Kate is wearing a new dress.

challenge for royal family (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36798044)

try not to fall for old, ugly, divorced chicks.

Re:challenge for royal family (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 3 years ago | (#36798214)

try not to fall for old, ugly, divorced chicks.

Or not to show too much enthusiasm for the Nazis [nowpublic.com]

Prince Philip has cryptography connections (3, Interesting)

nickovs (115935) | about 3 years ago | (#36798192)

I had the pleasure of meeting HRH the Duke of Edinburgh at an event once and, upon hearing that I worked in cryptography, he told me about his time working signals in the British navy during the second world war. He said he had always been fascinated by the operation of the British TypeX [wikipedia.org] equipment that he used back then. I don't suppose that he did any code breaking but he certainly was using codes well before the Cypherpunks [wikipedia.org] came along.

Alternate title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36798210)

Severely inbred welfare recipient encourages children to not follow in her footsteps, learn a trade

A new position? (1)

goraki (2385764) | about 3 years ago | (#36798264)

The Royal Cryptographer.

I'd apply for it, just for the title.

(Also would have been a good name for a book by William Gibson in the 90s)

Re:A new position? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36798616)

The Royal Cryptographer.

I'd apply for it, just for the title.

I think it would be the Cryptographer Royal (as in the Astronomer Royal).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomer_Royal

But would be very cool. :)

Personally, I think she could create a title. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36798354)

We have an Astronomer Royal, so why not Her Majesty's Cryptographer-in-Extraordinary?

Rupert wants to give it a shot (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 years ago | (#36798590)

I wonder if the Fox News/Wall Street Journal/News of the World empire will participate in the code-breaking contest?

They appear qualified.

Children? The Queen? (1)

slim (1652) | about 3 years ago | (#36798766)

There are *children* who pay attention to what the *Queen* has to say?

How depressing.

Re:Children? The Queen? (1)

heathen_01 (1191043) | about 3 years ago | (#36799060)

Ad hominem the Queen? Perhaps children should listen to the message and make up their own mind.

solved it, but won't tell you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36798892)

it think stuff is hidden enough already. wikileaks agrees?

The decrypt key... (1)

JaneTheIgnorantSlut (1265300) | about 3 years ago | (#36799906)

...is what she carries in that purse!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...