But unfortunately open source is not written by professionals, but ideologically driven amateurs and other random hobbyists.
That's not a fair generalization. Though there are plenty of "ideologically driven amateurs" — especially in the Linux (compared to BSD) world — they are mostly found among the noisy advocates, rather than actual developers.
Fixing this bug will be humongous amount of work, and there are likely to be even more like it in OpenSSL
Somewhere higher up the bug is described as a "simple bounds check" — which would be easy to implement. The truth is, probably, in between somewhere.
I am sure NSA know several more bugs like this that remain undisclosed.
NSA, I am sure, know plenty of holes — if not custom-made by the authors doors — into proprietary software too.
I am disappointed at the quality of open source software — especially pieces as famous and fundamental as OpenSSL, and I agree, that open source's claimed advantage of there being "thousands of eyeballs" verifying its correctness is overblown.
But to declare it to be "losing" is a silly jump just as far in the direction opposite to the enthusiastic proclamations of the above mentioned ideology-driven advocates.
Yet another case of government knowing better, what we are allowed to do with our lives and properties.
And, of course, let's not forget the hotel-room taxes it is losing from this "illegal" activity — and all the salaries of the unionized hotel workers, who, like all unions, are dear friends of the big government these days.
I'm not sure I would trust the opinion of someone that thinks the TSA is the main regulatory body of civilian aviation.
They aren't — they are just the agency, that makes flying such a miserable experience... Regular air-travel would've been just fine, had it not been for TSA's routinely degrading treatment of passengers.
And I doubt, they'll let these flights alone for long — not if the idea catches on.
There are two main reasons for this: up-front costs and legal obstacles.
An obvious case of market failure. We need new laws and regulations so that the caring, omni-scient and selfless government officials help the would-be newcomers deal with the existing laws and regulations.
As with the First, the Fourth only protects citizens against the government — not from each other. It is thus irrelevant to the topic at hand.
That is, allowing you to walk into my home does NOT automatically give you the right to record everything you see there.
As a matter of fact, you do — unless you ask me not to, I am allowed to record whatever I am allowed to see. It may be impolite of me, but it is legal. But this is not related to the article, so let's not stray too far off-topic.
Honestly the freedom of speech that was being protected in that case were of the women, not of Flint.
Distinction without (much) difference. Point is, publishing a picture — pornographic or otherwise — is speech...
it might a violation of copyright
Your image is not copyrighted — or else paparazzi's trade would've been illegal. But we already have laws against copyright violations (if any), so why the new bill?
If we did accept your argument, then we would also have to accept that it would be a violation of free speech to film film young girls in a dressing room or to take covertly film women going up an escalator so we can see up their dresses.
My argument is that, generally, whatever can be legally seen (and peeking into a dressing room is illegal), can also be legally recorded (and the recordings subsequently published). Any laws to the contrary violate the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And, as we learned from "People vs. Larry Flint" (and other, less popular, sources), porn is speech...
However disgusting, "revenge porn" ought to remain legal...
Yes as US gov protections in place for just such legal events eg safe from US gov surveillance without a warrant.
Snowden's published revelations cover much more than (admittedly reprehensible) warrantless spying on US citizens. For example, he revealed NSA's capability to record all telephone traffic of a foreign country.
Anyone alerting the Germans in 1943, that Enigma is compromised, would've been (justly) denounced as a traitor... What changed?
In 1943 Mr. Snowden would have been quite lucky if he got a trial before he was executed. We were fighting for our lives back then.
UK and USSR — maybe. The US — not quite. But the fight is still on-going... The Pearl Harbor attack killed fewer people, than 9/11 did...
The various agencies aren't doing anything they didn't do in 1914, it is just the scale of it is beyond the wildest dreams of any old cold war spy. We really can spy on everyone all the time forever:(
That is true. Technological advances have made counter-spying much easier. But it also made spying much easier as well — no longer does a spy need to radio his data from the attic of a "safe house" — he can simply send an encrypted e-mail.
Worse, the mass-murder is now much easier too — an organization no longer needs backing by the government of a large country to wreck serious carnage these days...
Whenever I hear anti-NSA rhetoric, I ask: imagine the same things being said about Alan Turing et al working to decode Germans' messages... Would Mr. Snowden receive the same respect and adoration, if he published the secrets of Bletchley Park in 1943?
How about the horrible "privacy invasion" that provided for intercepting of Zimmerman's telegram.
Not excusing everything NSA is doing these days, but putting things in perspective...
That's the number they modeled for. There is, actually, no stated assumptions on how many generations it will take to get there — neither the 30, nor the 1-2 I thought.
Once there you can develop diversity.
How?.. You can't — not if your starting gene-pool is too small to sustain the population beyond a few generations...
Place humans on different planets and I guarantee that we will experience our species splitting in two, assuming we live long enough.
I doubt, the conditions on a habitable foreign planet will differ from Earth's much more, than, for example, living in equatorial Africa is different from living above the Polar Circle. And though Negroes and Eskimos are very different in appearance, they are still the same species and can happily breed with each other producing perfectly healthy and viable offspring.
Now, being descended from the best of humanity (presumably, the first interstellar travelers from Earth will be selected for both health and smarts) may lead to the colony becoming far superior to the Earthlings. But they'll still be the same species...
However, the problem with your approach is that it's less efficient
No, the first and foremost problem is that such rapid deceleration will kill everyone on board — and destroy the ship too.
Unless, of course, the interior of the ship can be somehow insulated from accelerations outside — a much bigger assumption than imagining a propulsion method that can keep on working continuously.
If, however, such insulation is ever possible, then much faster speeds can be obtained — by accelerating not an 1g (to keep the passengers comfortable), but as fast as the engine allows...
Instead of turning around at the halfway point and using the same thrust to decelerate, would it be possible to, theoretically, initiate an explosion in front of the craft, equal in yield to the amount of thrust used to achieve whatever speed your craft is at when you need to start accelerating?
It does not matter, what is causing you to decelerate — an explosion, your own engine or breaks, an alien vessel, or a police car. What matters is the deceleration speed (how many miles per second will you drop each second). Going above 1g (the Earth's gravity) will be uncomfortable for the passengers. Going much above it, will kill them...
An explosion will either fail to stop the ship, or will stop it too quickly — because explosions are very short-lived.
It was 52 to 48... Or about the same as Obama's win in 2012.
how do you see that as anything other than 'some agree, some don't ?
Even if it were 90/10, it would still be possible to claim "some agree, some don't". That's besides the point. If, as snakeplissken asserted, the definition of marriage really were up to society, then "gay marriage" would've remained illegal in California.
That's why the proponents abandoned attempts to convince the rest of society, and went to the courts to force all others to grant the same recognition to homosexual unions. And it is this forcing, that's the reason, the proper name for such people is Illiberals.
No, you care about GETTING THERE with enough wits about you that you can continue to function, and set up something to expand your capabilities.
If, as the write-up suggests, the "getting there" can be accomplished within only one or two generations, then much less genetic diversity is required to stay healthy and capable while in-transit.
The much larger diversity is needed for the colony to stay healthy in perpetuity. It is this post-transit diversity, that may require as many as 40000 people (or embryos).
The fastest spacecrafts we've ever built take about 9 years or so to go from Earth to Pluto. At that rate, they would take about 120,000 years to reach the next closest solar system.
That's only because they spend most of this time without acceleration — in free fall. Once we find a way to continuously accelerate the ship even at the comfortable 1g, the 9 years shrinks to a couple of months (you accelerate for half the distance and then turn around and begin decelerating for the rest)...
No need to raise them all at the same time. The discussion is not about people needed to get the colony going from the start — it is about preserving the genetic diversity over generations.
Introducing additional gene-sets into population can be done gradually over decades.
I'm not sure, the female colonists — born and raised in space, BTW — will all agree to inseminate themselves with the thawed sperm of strangers instead of following the instinct to conceive in the hot embrace of their lovers.
Some of them might, but it is a risk, that the idea will be rejected en masse...
Perhaps, we'll develop incubators capable of replacing women's wombs — but even then there might be a problem with such kids being discriminated against in comparison with the "real" children...
It may be a solvable problem, but the solution will be complex.
Original sentence again, try reading all the words this time: Well sure, but they also were subject to arrests, and in some cases post-demonstration harassment such as being put on TSA no-fly lists.
Stop splitting hairs — nobody in the US gets imprisoned over speech. Arrested — for refusing to obey law-enforcement's orders — maybe. But arrest is not the same as incarceration — not in the US.
Are you sure that you're not an ignorant social conservative, rather than a libertarian.
I am sure, I am a libertarian. Whether or not I am also a "social conservative" — that I am not sure. Because I don't know, what sort of meaning you attach to this term. I'm perfectly fine with people fucking and loving each other — whether in groups or in couples (of any gender). But I don't like the attempts to force me to recognize and treat anything other than a union between a man and a woman as marriage.
ignorant... toxic loons... average IQ is well below room temperature... backward...
So, polite debating is not practiced in your neck of the woods, I see... Well, at least, you got moderated nicely.
Indeed, no culture in the history of humanity has done so
That's exactly what a social conservative would say.
Maybe. So? You were, probably, trying to make some point here... You failed...
What are you talking about? Gay folks have the exact same rights as all of us... Including marrying one person of the opposite gender. That they can not exercise that right is their misfortune, but not our problem. For another example, a paraplegic has the right to practice karate — just not the ability...
I also share your view that marriage should be completely separate from government.
It may be argued, that government's interest in child-bearing (and -rearing!) unions is legitimate. Because heterosexual couples tend to have children eventually, some sort of justification for recognition of the traditional marriages exists. Possibly...
But what we can't have is the government offering a right to one group of people and not another.
Gays have the same right as the rest of us — to marry one person of the opposite gender. They just don't have the ability to exercise it. Just as I would not change the rules of volleyball to allow paraplegics to play it, I would not change the definition of marriage to accommodate homosexuals.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a fair generalization. Though there are plenty of "ideologically driven amateurs" — especially in the Linux (compared to BSD) world — they are mostly found among the noisy advocates, rather than actual developers.
Somewhere higher up the bug is described as a "simple bounds check" — which would be easy to implement. The truth is, probably, in between somewhere.
NSA, I am sure, know plenty of holes — if not custom-made by the authors doors — into proprietary software too.
I am disappointed at the quality of open source software — especially pieces as famous and fundamental as OpenSSL, and I agree, that open source's claimed advantage of there being "thousands of eyeballs" verifying its correctness is overblown.
But to declare it to be "losing" is a silly jump just as far in the direction opposite to the enthusiastic proclamations of the above mentioned ideology-driven advocates.
Yet another case of government knowing better, what we are allowed to do with our lives and properties.
And, of course, let's not forget the hotel-room taxes it is losing from this "illegal" activity — and all the salaries of the unionized hotel workers, who, like all unions, are dear friends of the big government these days.
They aren't — they are just the agency, that makes flying such a miserable experience... Regular air-travel would've been just fine, had it not been for TSA's routinely degrading treatment of passengers.
And I doubt, they'll let these flights alone for long — not if the idea catches on.
An obvious case of market failure. We need new laws and regulations so that the caring, omni-scient and selfless government officials help the would-be newcomers deal with the existing laws and regulations.
Better yet, let's have a single-payer ISP...
As with the First, the Fourth only protects citizens against the government — not from each other. It is thus irrelevant to the topic at hand.
As a matter of fact, you do — unless you ask me not to, I am allowed to record whatever I am allowed to see. It may be impolite of me, but it is legal. But this is not related to the article, so let's not stray too far off-topic.
I don't see, what "civil society" has to do with this thinking. Or, perhaps, our enemies in Russia and among the Al Qaeda folks aren't "civil".
Either way, the enemy really is out there, is dreaming about — and actively working on — causing us harm.
Distinction without (much) difference. Point is, publishing a picture — pornographic or otherwise — is speech...
Your image is not copyrighted — or else paparazzi's trade would've been illegal. But we already have laws against copyright violations (if any), so why the new bill?
My argument is that, generally, whatever can be legally seen (and peeking into a dressing room is illegal), can also be legally recorded (and the recordings subsequently published). Any laws to the contrary violate the First Amendment.
And, as we learned from "People vs. Larry Flint" (and other, less popular, sources), porn is speech...
However disgusting, "revenge porn" ought to remain legal...
Snowden's published revelations cover much more than (admittedly reprehensible) warrantless spying on US citizens. For example, he revealed NSA's capability to record all telephone traffic of a foreign country.
Anyone alerting the Germans in 1943, that Enigma is compromised, would've been (justly) denounced as a traitor... What changed?
Only because they could not.
NSA has not tortured any one either.
In other words, Apple is for the 1%...
UK and USSR — maybe. The US — not quite. But the fight is still on-going... The Pearl Harbor attack killed fewer people, than 9/11 did...
That is true. Technological advances have made counter-spying much easier. But it also made spying much easier as well — no longer does a spy need to radio his data from the attic of a "safe house" — he can simply send an encrypted e-mail.
Worse, the mass-murder is now much easier too — an organization no longer needs backing by the government of a large country to wreck serious carnage these days...
Whenever I hear anti-NSA rhetoric, I ask: imagine the same things being said about Alan Turing et al working to decode Germans' messages... Would Mr. Snowden receive the same respect and adoration, if he published the secrets of Bletchley Park in 1943?
How about the horrible "privacy invasion" that provided for intercepting of Zimmerman's telegram.
Not excusing everything NSA is doing these days, but putting things in perspective...
That's the number they modeled for. There is, actually, no stated assumptions on how many generations it will take to get there — neither the 30, nor the 1-2 I thought.
How?.. You can't — not if your starting gene-pool is too small to sustain the population beyond a few generations...
I doubt, the conditions on a habitable foreign planet will differ from Earth's much more, than, for example, living in equatorial Africa is different from living above the Polar Circle. And though Negroes and Eskimos are very different in appearance, they are still the same species and can happily breed with each other producing perfectly healthy and viable offspring.
Now, being descended from the best of humanity (presumably, the first interstellar travelers from Earth will be selected for both health and smarts) may lead to the colony becoming far superior to the Earthlings. But they'll still be the same species...
No, the first and foremost problem is that such rapid deceleration will kill everyone on board — and destroy the ship too.
Unless, of course, the interior of the ship can be somehow insulated from accelerations outside — a much bigger assumption than imagining a propulsion method that can keep on working continuously.
If, however, such insulation is ever possible, then much faster speeds can be obtained — by accelerating not an 1g (to keep the passengers comfortable), but as fast as the engine allows...
It does not matter, what is causing you to decelerate — an explosion, your own engine or breaks, an alien vessel, or a police car. What matters is the deceleration speed (how many miles per second will you drop each second). Going above 1g (the Earth's gravity) will be uncomfortable for the passengers. Going much above it, will kill them...
An explosion will either fail to stop the ship, or will stop it too quickly — because explosions are very short-lived.
It was 52 to 48... Or about the same as Obama's win in 2012.
Even if it were 90/10, it would still be possible to claim "some agree, some don't". That's besides the point. If, as snakeplissken asserted, the definition of marriage really were up to society, then "gay marriage" would've remained illegal in California.
That's why the proponents abandoned attempts to convince the rest of society, and went to the courts to force all others to grant the same recognition to homosexual unions. And it is this forcing, that's the reason, the proper name for such people is Illiberals.
If, as the write-up suggests, the "getting there" can be accomplished within only one or two generations, then much less genetic diversity is required to stay healthy and capable while in-transit.
The much larger diversity is needed for the colony to stay healthy in perpetuity. It is this post-transit diversity, that may require as many as 40000 people (or embryos).
That's only because they spend most of this time without acceleration — in free fall. Once we find a way to continuously accelerate the ship even at the comfortable 1g, the 9 years shrinks to a couple of months (you accelerate for half the distance and then turn around and begin decelerating for the rest)...
No need to raise them all at the same time. The discussion is not about people needed to get the colony going from the start — it is about preserving the genetic diversity over generations.
Introducing additional gene-sets into population can be done gradually over decades.
I'm not sure, the female colonists — born and raised in space, BTW — will all agree to inseminate themselves with the thawed sperm of strangers instead of following the instinct to conceive in the hot embrace of their lovers.
Some of them might, but it is a risk, that the idea will be rejected en masse...
Perhaps, we'll develop incubators capable of replacing women's wombs — but even then there might be a problem with such kids being discriminated against in comparison with the "real" children...
It may be a solvable problem, but the solution will be complex.
Stop splitting hairs — nobody in the US gets imprisoned over speech. Arrested — for refusing to obey law-enforcement's orders — maybe. But arrest is not the same as incarceration — not in the US.
I am sure, I am a libertarian. Whether or not I am also a "social conservative" — that I am not sure. Because I don't know, what sort of meaning you attach to this term. I'm perfectly fine with people fucking and loving each other — whether in groups or in couples (of any gender). But I don't like the attempts to force me to recognize and treat anything other than a union between a man and a woman as marriage.
So, polite debating is not practiced in your neck of the woods, I see... Well, at least, you got moderated nicely.
Maybe. So? You were, probably, trying to make some point here... You failed...
Arguably, "Spreading the wealth around" is Communism...
What are you talking about? Gay folks have the exact same rights as all of us... Including marrying one person of the opposite gender. That they can not exercise that right is their misfortune, but not our problem. For another example, a paraplegic has the right to practice karate — just not the ability...
It may be argued, that government's interest in child-bearing (and -rearing!) unions is legitimate. Because heterosexual couples tend to have children eventually, some sort of justification for recognition of the traditional marriages exists. Possibly...
Gays have the same right as the rest of us — to marry one person of the opposite gender. They just don't have the ability to exercise it. Just as I would not change the rules of volleyball to allow paraplegics to play it, I would not change the definition of marriage to accommodate homosexuals.