Are you fucking retarded? The OpenBLD team can always contribute fixes to the version that OpenSSL maintains.
So basically what they want to do is take their pet project, fix a bloated pile of crap, and do it with no concern for other OSes and everyone's requirements which have everything to do with producing actual useful output?
They've got to be pretty lazy and extremely selfish to make such a retarded decision.
But hey, you're right, they should totally create a vendor-locked version of an extremely critical core Internet security technology and then tell people that they can either pay up or do the work to vender-unlock their non-portable code themselves. Selfish fucks.
The OpenBSD folks aren't even makeing it closed source. It's out there if you want it. And it's specific to OpenBSD because---guess what---it's being done by OpenBSD developers.
And
OMG nuuuu!!111oneeleven People on the internet aren't working for free for me!! How dare those evil fuckers want to get fucking paid for FUCKING WORK!!!
Conflicting stances.
The fact of the matter is they have two possible modes of operation: Contribute code back to OpenSSL or create a project tied to OpenBSD that won't run elsewhere. They've voiced openly that this new code will run on OpenBSD but not elsewhere, but that they'll fix it to run elsewhere if you give them money. Or, you could apply your own effort to it.
Fact of the matter is they're not being philanthropic; they're dangling a carrot and telling you if you want it you can either pay them to bring it down to you or you can climb the mountain and come take it. They're putting in some effort to grow the carrot, but they've decided to plant their carrot field atop a mountain instead of using the fertile farm land at the base where the villagers can get to it. Only the elite--the rich or the strong--can get the carrot, either by climbing the mountain themselves or by paying for the privilege of having it brought to them. In this model, it happens that once somebody has done this, they can grow their own carrots (with some of the same effort) from the first carrot, and give carrots to all regardless of their affluence or their fitness to climb the mountain.
The source code is available. Is the labor available?
My point is that it costs less in labor to rewrite OpenSSL cleaned-up but OpenBSD only without consideration for other OSes than it does to rewrite OpenSSL with no such consideration. Then, when you go back and fix the now-broken OpenSSL rewrite (LibreSSL), you add more than the difference in that labor: it requires more overall effort to do this one-and-a-half times than to do it right once.
So you have two options: Pay up and have the OpenBSD writers supply the additional half-effort to port LibreSSL back to everything; or pay up and supply your own labor as the additional half-effort to port LibreSSL's changes back into OpenSSL, after fixing the code up for full multi-OS support, with a diverging code base as you go along making tracking harder over time.
They're not giving everyone a rewritten OpenSSL; they're giving everyone the concept of a rewritten OpenSSL, which you can put into use on OpenBSD, or you can apply your own effort or apply money to OpenBSD to get written to work on Linux/FreeBSD/Windows.
It's called sustainable business. They have increasing costs as they try to search for quality; they're not at a point where they have the value to lobby down the content cost, which is complex and requires having so much content rolling through that they can argue that they're a major income source for new content (i.e. they have so much new content that if your new content is not on Netflix then you are going to miss out on profit opportunities). As the services fragment (Hulu, Amazon Prime,etc.), it will become "we need to be a part of the digital distribution model in full, or else we're missing important profitability".
It's not about a better OpenSSL. It's about OpenBSD waving its penis around. That's all it is. The OpenSSL team is amenable to aid; but they have two developers and no help. OpenBSD is essentially holding OpenSSL hostage by making their own version, not contributing back, and making it OS-specific to OpenBSD unless you give them money to make it not.
This will ultimately end in a lot of additional wasted effort to undo the damage OpenBSD is doing to LibreSSL so that the code can be ported back into OpenSSL proper, rather than investing slightly more effort in the first pass to do it right and not having a hefty second pass where they need to identify why it doesn't work on Linux/FreeBSDlWindows and then undo some of the things they did.
This happens because all descriptors map the same area. They shoudn't. PaX may be a clever trick, but it is to fix a software design flaw. Modern (elf/coff-based et al) binaries have a fixup table *precisely* to be loaded at a random address. Code segments and data segments are separated for the same reason. The same goes for the BSS info. It makes no sense *not to use this*, specially since most platforms are elf-based.
Actually, PaX does use that information. The problem was, originally, that the CPU itself did not have an NX bit. If you set PROT_READ, the CPU and MMU interpreted "READ" to mean "EXECUTABLE", because you could *read* program code and why would you want to do that except to execute it?
Check out the 80686, 200MHz, manufactured in 1999 as the Pentium Pro.
By design, in x86 systems, every application should have its own set of descriptors (by using an LDT).
Yes, and in 2001 no x86 CPUs were physically capable in hardware of marking executability in the LDT.
i.e. you've stopped arguing because the arguments are actually getting too hard for you to defend except in the most nebulous of ways, or by making more and more ludicrous statements which can be more easily dismissed.
I rely on this idea that if I've been where you were once, and I found I was wrong, and I revised my position, then you're probably wrong. As that's about where we are, I'm just looking back at a past snapshot of myself before I figured out how things worked, and wholly unamused that I was ever dumb enough to believe the kind of crap you're spouting, even if I do know better now.
I want to see a model of a Venus carbon scrub. 96% CO2? Earth is 20% O2, 0.035% CO2. Venus has 3.5% nitrogen. If we brought the CO2 down to Earth levels, the atmosphere would be 1% CO2, 99% nitrogen. Obviously, instead, you'd have a ton of oxygen--but if you could find hydrogen, you could make vast amounts of O2.
I went to research this and... someone has already worked it out. Bombarding Venus with hydrogen would produce a 3 bar atmosphere, 80% coverage with water, 10% of the water on the earth's surface but Venus is flat. Habitable. Probably not for humans, but we could continuously dump life there and it would eventually adapt. Building an ecosphere would be hard; it would be easier to seed with microbial life and wait a billion years. Rapid terraformation is hard; we could use a temporal bubble to do it, otherwise not so great.
Hair splitting?! Are you serious?! You're saying that separating stock performance from financial performance is hair-splitting?!
What next? Are you going to claim that separating a car engine's horse power output from the car's body material is also hair-splitting? Presumably because a 400HP engine would accelerate the car more slowly if the body were heavier, such as by being steel instead of carbon fiber?
To call the difference between financial earnings and share price "hair splitting" is to say that you have no clue whatsoever what "Earnings Per Share" (a fundamentals analysis benchmark) is, or P/E ratio, or anything about the stock market.
No wonder you're so whacked. You actually think stocks reflect earnings.
I'm hyperplastic or something; the rules don't work on me. What is called the "lizard brain" (basal ganglia) does not strongly activate the amygdala (emotional center) in times of conflict. Usually people face conflicting facts by shutting off the analytical mind (prefrontal cortex) and activating the amygdala--your basal ganglia does not like hearing facts it disagrees with, and your prefrontal cortex takes a lot more energy than anything else, so you throw a cheap tantrum to avoid spending energy on thinking.
With me, I'm constantly re-evaluating my position. I don't have strong emotional reactions. This means I quickly re-form my mode of thinking, a lot. People are different by the day and the world changes around a lot; it's energy-intensive, but I constantly re-assess everything.
I'm unsure if this was a contributing factor in what happened when I started taking phenotropil, but I'm off it now and I no longer have ADHD!... this isn't as cool as you think. A lot of mental aberrations are gone, but I'm not suddenly the world's most articulate man (that would be Winston Churchill), and I'm more emotional (that got fixed--amygdala works now, anger REALLY SUCKS and the first time you really feel it you will want to know how to make it NEVER happen again), and for the most part just as socially inept as before. But I can think clearly now.
Yes, it's permanent. No, I haven't learned how to be normal yet. Methylphenedate didn't do that either.
A guy walking up a hill and coming back with stone tablets handed to him by the creator of the universe is somewhat believable. Failing that he actually encountered a weird deity, we can at least accept that the tablets contain good advice, and he may be hearing voices.
The whole alien conspiracy theory thing that Scientology pushes is a huge ball of weirdness, and any rational person would look at this and go, "None of this is good advice, and you're all looney." Nobody is going to look at a list "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not fucketh thy neighbor's wife while thy neighbor doth haveth a tavern run with thine drinking buddies," etc, and say, "Okay, all of this shit is insane, this is all terrible advice, and I don't want to live in a society built on this lunacy."
Every crazy person has a few valid points. Black people have sickle cell anemia much of the time, as this prevents malaria--a worse problem than clots caused by anemia. A highly racist group could advocate cleansing this damaging disease from our genetic assets by cleansing ourselves of every drop of nigger blood.
Well, imagine if Google supplied a $25,000 public grant to the National Coalition for the Advancement of Marriage Rights in America, a group with a fancy name whose primary goal is to make it a capital crime to be a nigger-lover.
Oh sure Google might take some heat on that. But then everyone would know that there is a group out there lobbying to make it illegal to marry, impregnate, or hook up with a black chick if you're white. Possibly if you're black, too.
Hilariously, we didn't know about these nutjobs before. Now we do. Looks like Google just elevated the idiot campaign to the public mind, and probably did more than $10,000 of damage with this little PR slip.
You would be surprised how easy it is to get somebody attacked by helping them, if you can handle the heat from the splash damage.
Executives are paid what is required to attract them. If you divide executive salaries and total compensation (including stock options) out by the employees, you get anywhere from fractions of a penny to lunch money per year for all the employees. People were calling for Ford's executives to take less salary so they could pay Ford employees more; Ford had over 300,000 employees and the executives made $6M-$9M total compensation, which came out to a few dollars per pay check. I mean like 5 or 10 bucks a week here.
Intel's output is fairly complex, which is interesting. Funny enough, they're talking about the company's financial performance, which isn't about share price. You see, Intel could have huge losses, and release press releases about bogus research that's going nowhere that they claim will be hot and cool and majorly profitable and take over the world, and their share price soars. But if you look at the graph, it does say, you know, "average cash incentive payments have varied based on Intel’s net income results". Guess what? Net income doesn't control share price.
Yeah, by companies getting money from people (sales and services) and paying it out into the system as dividends.
Stocks do not increase in total value. 100 x AAPL going from $10 to $100 does not give you $10,000; someone has to come along with $10,000 to buy it, or else there's only $1,000. The stock market is "worth" more money than the entire economy ffs, there isn't that much money in the world.
Some of that was just spurting. Also the PaX stuff isn't unmapped pages; they're mapped, just they're ring-0 only, and so when the userspace ring-3 execution flow tries to execute it you get a protection fault. Then the OS forces a ring-3 DTLB load if it's not an execution attempt, and the program continues--the protection isn't checked if there's a DTLB entry, so this actually works.
FreeBSD is also vulnerable, OpenBSD isn't. That's the thing: It's Linux and vulnerable dedicated appliances everywhere. And apparently FreeBSD; I would think anyone who goes as far as to use BSD in production would be leaning on OpenBSD.
Sometimes. Most likely, 64KB reads would do this a lot.
This was meant to be a leading question, however. I'll point out again: OpenSSL when not being fed incorrect data (i.e. a long payload supplied during exploit) does not read past the end of allocated space. This situation is non-anomalous, which means OpenSSL would not crash.
In other words: OpenSSL would only repeatedly crash when actively under heavy attack.
I am a strong proponent of basic income. Even the UBI camp is highly divided: some want a minimal comfort UBI, some want a minimal living UBI, some want to push UBI high enough to force wage increases for labor. We're all in agreement that it would fix many of the problems in our country.
UBI would replace welfare services (which is in debate--I don't care to replace Medicare due to economic complexity) and give everyone a negative starting tax burden; that is, rather than starting at a tax of $0 and owing the government some amount of your income, you start at i.e. -$10,000. If you owe less than the UBI ($10k here) in taxes, the government gives you money.
From my standpoint, I argue for a UBI that provides enough to make small living spaces worth renting out. That is to say: If we supply $10k, everyone has $833/mo. Of that $833, a landlord may charge $300-$500 for renting of a small (100-300sqft--think 9x9 tatami rooms in Japan, 81sqft) apartment with shared kitchen and bathroom facilities (like dorm rooms in college). This leaves some money for food and basic personal care. This horrible living situation is created by the fact that poor people now have a guaranteed amount of money, and rich landlords will want to extract that money from poor people--capitalism at its finest.
This would replace housing assistance, welfare checks, food stamps, unemployment, social security, and government pensions; rotating out social security and pensions is an extremely complex task beyond this discussion, for the obvious reasons that we need to pay out the full balance of each as promised yet we need to extract funds from them to provide the UBI. The end result in my case an 18% UBI tax on personal income to replace what amounts to 25% of the personal income (2012: $13.4 trillion personal income total) in current welfare benefits payouts, not including any current welfare overhead costs.
The end situation is simple enough: because of the above capitalist trap, nobody goes homeless or hungry in this society. You can afford really horrible housing that you hate, but you won't starve in the street. There is no welfare trap: you always collect UBI, rich, poor, employed or not. $833/mo isn't enough? Get a job. On unemployment or SSDI, this means we take away your money--my $430/wk becomes $450/wk if I get a $12/hr job, making my effective wage $0.50/hr, hence why I held out for a $60k+ salary.
So under a UBI system, there is a strong incentive to work, and no disincentive to work. There is also a social safety net so that everyone's financial situation is more stable. People no longer live in fear of a broken economy; and even in a poor economic situation, UBI remains durable--it takes much worse to weaken the benefits of UBI than it does to break an economy run on our current welfare program. Minimum wage is unnecessary. Inflation causes total income and thus the output of an 18% UBI tax and the payout of UBI to increase. A shrinking middle class just diverts more income to the rich, who are still paying the same UBI tax, and thus that income still supports the UBI system.
UBI is a great way to improve the mental health of our country as a whole by improving financial security without harming the incentive to work--perhaps, compared to our current welfare systems, to even increase the incentive to work. Such an improvement in mental health should decrease criminal behavior by reducing tension and desperation.
Latin and Greek have wider vocabularies than any conlang. Also, Lojban in practice is highly open to interpretation; there are other formal mathematical languages used to define strict interpretations by using logical operations to build relations.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you fucking retarded? The OpenBLD team can always contribute fixes to the version that OpenSSL maintains.
So basically what they want to do is take their pet project, fix a bloated pile of crap, and do it with no concern for other OSes and everyone's requirements which have everything to do with producing actual useful output?
They've got to be pretty lazy and extremely selfish to make such a retarded decision.
But hey, you're right, they should totally create a vendor-locked version of an extremely critical core Internet security technology and then tell people that they can either pay up or do the work to vender-unlock their non-portable code themselves. Selfish fucks.
The OpenBSD folks aren't even makeing it closed source. It's out there if you want it. And it's specific to OpenBSD because---guess what---it's being done by OpenBSD developers.
And
OMG nuuuu!!111oneeleven People on the internet aren't working for free for me!! How dare those evil fuckers want to get fucking paid for FUCKING WORK!!!
Conflicting stances.
The fact of the matter is they have two possible modes of operation: Contribute code back to OpenSSL or create a project tied to OpenBSD that won't run elsewhere. They've voiced openly that this new code will run on OpenBSD but not elsewhere, but that they'll fix it to run elsewhere if you give them money. Or, you could apply your own effort to it.
Fact of the matter is they're not being philanthropic; they're dangling a carrot and telling you if you want it you can either pay them to bring it down to you or you can climb the mountain and come take it. They're putting in some effort to grow the carrot, but they've decided to plant their carrot field atop a mountain instead of using the fertile farm land at the base where the villagers can get to it. Only the elite--the rich or the strong--can get the carrot, either by climbing the mountain themselves or by paying for the privilege of having it brought to them. In this model, it happens that once somebody has done this, they can grow their own carrots (with some of the same effort) from the first carrot, and give carrots to all regardless of their affluence or their fitness to climb the mountain.
The source code is available. Is the labor available?
My point is that it costs less in labor to rewrite OpenSSL cleaned-up but OpenBSD only without consideration for other OSes than it does to rewrite OpenSSL with no such consideration. Then, when you go back and fix the now-broken OpenSSL rewrite (LibreSSL), you add more than the difference in that labor: it requires more overall effort to do this one-and-a-half times than to do it right once.
So you have two options: Pay up and have the OpenBSD writers supply the additional half-effort to port LibreSSL back to everything; or pay up and supply your own labor as the additional half-effort to port LibreSSL's changes back into OpenSSL, after fixing the code up for full multi-OS support, with a diverging code base as you go along making tracking harder over time.
They're not giving everyone a rewritten OpenSSL; they're giving everyone the concept of a rewritten OpenSSL, which you can put into use on OpenBSD, or you can apply your own effort or apply money to OpenBSD to get written to work on Linux/FreeBSD/Windows.
It's called sustainable business. They have increasing costs as they try to search for quality; they're not at a point where they have the value to lobby down the content cost, which is complex and requires having so much content rolling through that they can argue that they're a major income source for new content (i.e. they have so much new content that if your new content is not on Netflix then you are going to miss out on profit opportunities). As the services fragment (Hulu, Amazon Prime,etc.), it will become "we need to be a part of the digital distribution model in full, or else we're missing important profitability".
It's not about a better OpenSSL. It's about OpenBSD waving its penis around. That's all it is. The OpenSSL team is amenable to aid; but they have two developers and no help. OpenBSD is essentially holding OpenSSL hostage by making their own version, not contributing back, and making it OS-specific to OpenBSD unless you give them money to make it not.
This will ultimately end in a lot of additional wasted effort to undo the damage OpenBSD is doing to LibreSSL so that the code can be ported back into OpenSSL proper, rather than investing slightly more effort in the first pass to do it right and not having a hefty second pass where they need to identify why it doesn't work on Linux/FreeBSDlWindows and then undo some of the things they did.
To be fair, they could have stopped at "Our education system is failing".
This happens because all descriptors map the same area. They shoudn't. PaX may be a clever trick, but it is to fix a software design flaw. Modern (elf/coff-based et al) binaries have a fixup table *precisely* to be loaded at a random address. Code segments and data segments are separated for the same reason. The same goes for the BSS info. It makes no sense *not to use this*, specially since most platforms are elf-based.
Actually, PaX does use that information. The problem was, originally, that the CPU itself did not have an NX bit. If you set PROT_READ, the CPU and MMU interpreted "READ" to mean "EXECUTABLE", because you could *read* program code and why would you want to do that except to execute it?
Check out the 80686, 200MHz, manufactured in 1999 as the Pentium Pro.
By design, in x86 systems, every application should have its own set of descriptors (by using an LDT).
Yes, and in 2001 no x86 CPUs were physically capable in hardware of marking executability in the LDT.
i.e. you've stopped arguing because the arguments are actually getting too hard for you to defend except in the most nebulous of ways, or by making more and more ludicrous statements which can be more easily dismissed.
I rely on this idea that if I've been where you were once, and I found I was wrong, and I revised my position, then you're probably wrong. As that's about where we are, I'm just looking back at a past snapshot of myself before I figured out how things worked, and wholly unamused that I was ever dumb enough to believe the kind of crap you're spouting, even if I do know better now.
I want to see a model of a Venus carbon scrub. 96% CO2? Earth is 20% O2, 0.035% CO2. Venus has 3.5% nitrogen. If we brought the CO2 down to Earth levels, the atmosphere would be 1% CO2, 99% nitrogen. Obviously, instead, you'd have a ton of oxygen--but if you could find hydrogen, you could make vast amounts of O2.
I went to research this and ... someone has already worked it out. Bombarding Venus with hydrogen would produce a 3 bar atmosphere, 80% coverage with water, 10% of the water on the earth's surface but Venus is flat. Habitable. Probably not for humans, but we could continuously dump life there and it would eventually adapt. Building an ecosphere would be hard; it would be easier to seed with microbial life and wait a billion years. Rapid terraformation is hard; we could use a temporal bubble to do it, otherwise not so great.
Hair splitting?! Are you serious?! You're saying that separating stock performance from financial performance is hair-splitting?!
What next? Are you going to claim that separating a car engine's horse power output from the car's body material is also hair-splitting? Presumably because a 400HP engine would accelerate the car more slowly if the body were heavier, such as by being steel instead of carbon fiber?
To call the difference between financial earnings and share price "hair splitting" is to say that you have no clue whatsoever what "Earnings Per Share" (a fundamentals analysis benchmark) is, or P/E ratio, or anything about the stock market.
No wonder you're so whacked. You actually think stocks reflect earnings.
They won't be virgins for very long.
Such pessimism and loathing as this truly is the ranitng of a primitive mind. No progress will grow from persons such as this.
BLACKS ARE HERE IN NEW JERSEY TO DESTROY US!
Bring me my overthruster! John Bigboote I swear!!
LIZARD!
I'm hyperplastic or something; the rules don't work on me. What is called the "lizard brain" (basal ganglia) does not strongly activate the amygdala (emotional center) in times of conflict. Usually people face conflicting facts by shutting off the analytical mind (prefrontal cortex) and activating the amygdala--your basal ganglia does not like hearing facts it disagrees with, and your prefrontal cortex takes a lot more energy than anything else, so you throw a cheap tantrum to avoid spending energy on thinking.
With me, I'm constantly re-evaluating my position. I don't have strong emotional reactions. This means I quickly re-form my mode of thinking, a lot. People are different by the day and the world changes around a lot; it's energy-intensive, but I constantly re-assess everything.
I'm unsure if this was a contributing factor in what happened when I started taking phenotropil, but I'm off it now and I no longer have ADHD! ... this isn't as cool as you think. A lot of mental aberrations are gone, but I'm not suddenly the world's most articulate man (that would be Winston Churchill), and I'm more emotional (that got fixed--amygdala works now, anger REALLY SUCKS and the first time you really feel it you will want to know how to make it NEVER happen again), and for the most part just as socially inept as before. But I can think clearly now.
Yes, it's permanent. No, I haven't learned how to be normal yet. Methylphenedate didn't do that either.
Patently false.
A guy walking up a hill and coming back with stone tablets handed to him by the creator of the universe is somewhat believable. Failing that he actually encountered a weird deity, we can at least accept that the tablets contain good advice, and he may be hearing voices.
The whole alien conspiracy theory thing that Scientology pushes is a huge ball of weirdness, and any rational person would look at this and go, "None of this is good advice, and you're all looney." Nobody is going to look at a list "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not fucketh thy neighbor's wife while thy neighbor doth haveth a tavern run with thine drinking buddies," etc, and say, "Okay, all of this shit is insane, this is all terrible advice, and I don't want to live in a society built on this lunacy."
Every crazy person has a few valid points. Black people have sickle cell anemia much of the time, as this prevents malaria--a worse problem than clots caused by anemia. A highly racist group could advocate cleansing this damaging disease from our genetic assets by cleansing ourselves of every drop of nigger blood.
Well, imagine if Google supplied a $25,000 public grant to the National Coalition for the Advancement of Marriage Rights in America, a group with a fancy name whose primary goal is to make it a capital crime to be a nigger-lover.
Oh sure Google might take some heat on that. But then everyone would know that there is a group out there lobbying to make it illegal to marry, impregnate, or hook up with a black chick if you're white. Possibly if you're black, too.
Hilariously, we didn't know about these nutjobs before. Now we do. Looks like Google just elevated the idiot campaign to the public mind, and probably did more than $10,000 of damage with this little PR slip.
You would be surprised how easy it is to get somebody attacked by helping them, if you can handle the heat from the splash damage.
Executives are paid what is required to attract them. If you divide executive salaries and total compensation (including stock options) out by the employees, you get anywhere from fractions of a penny to lunch money per year for all the employees. People were calling for Ford's executives to take less salary so they could pay Ford employees more; Ford had over 300,000 employees and the executives made $6M-$9M total compensation, which came out to a few dollars per pay check. I mean like 5 or 10 bucks a week here.
Intel's output is fairly complex, which is interesting. Funny enough, they're talking about the company's financial performance, which isn't about share price. You see, Intel could have huge losses, and release press releases about bogus research that's going nowhere that they claim will be hot and cool and majorly profitable and take over the world, and their share price soars. But if you look at the graph, it does say, you know, "average cash incentive payments have varied based on Intel’s net income results". Guess what? Net income doesn't control share price.
Yeah, by companies getting money from people (sales and services) and paying it out into the system as dividends.
Stocks do not increase in total value. 100 x AAPL going from $10 to $100 does not give you $10,000; someone has to come along with $10,000 to buy it, or else there's only $1,000. The stock market is "worth" more money than the entire economy ffs, there isn't that much money in the world.
Some of that was just spurting. Also the PaX stuff isn't unmapped pages; they're mapped, just they're ring-0 only, and so when the userspace ring-3 execution flow tries to execute it you get a protection fault. Then the OS forces a ring-3 DTLB load if it's not an execution attempt, and the program continues--the protection isn't checked if there's a DTLB entry, so this actually works.
FreeBSD is also vulnerable, OpenBSD isn't. That's the thing: It's Linux and vulnerable dedicated appliances everywhere. And apparently FreeBSD; I would think anyone who goes as far as to use BSD in production would be leaning on OpenBSD.
Sometimes. Most likely, 64KB reads would do this a lot.
This was meant to be a leading question, however. I'll point out again: OpenSSL when not being fed incorrect data (i.e. a long payload supplied during exploit) does not read past the end of allocated space. This situation is non-anomalous, which means OpenSSL would not crash.
In other words: OpenSSL would only repeatedly crash when actively under heavy attack.
I am a strong proponent of basic income. Even the UBI camp is highly divided: some want a minimal comfort UBI, some want a minimal living UBI, some want to push UBI high enough to force wage increases for labor. We're all in agreement that it would fix many of the problems in our country.
UBI would replace welfare services (which is in debate--I don't care to replace Medicare due to economic complexity) and give everyone a negative starting tax burden; that is, rather than starting at a tax of $0 and owing the government some amount of your income, you start at i.e. -$10,000. If you owe less than the UBI ($10k here) in taxes, the government gives you money.
From my standpoint, I argue for a UBI that provides enough to make small living spaces worth renting out. That is to say: If we supply $10k, everyone has $833/mo. Of that $833, a landlord may charge $300-$500 for renting of a small (100-300sqft--think 9x9 tatami rooms in Japan, 81sqft) apartment with shared kitchen and bathroom facilities (like dorm rooms in college). This leaves some money for food and basic personal care. This horrible living situation is created by the fact that poor people now have a guaranteed amount of money, and rich landlords will want to extract that money from poor people--capitalism at its finest.
This would replace housing assistance, welfare checks, food stamps, unemployment, social security, and government pensions; rotating out social security and pensions is an extremely complex task beyond this discussion, for the obvious reasons that we need to pay out the full balance of each as promised yet we need to extract funds from them to provide the UBI. The end result in my case an 18% UBI tax on personal income to replace what amounts to 25% of the personal income (2012: $13.4 trillion personal income total) in current welfare benefits payouts, not including any current welfare overhead costs.
The end situation is simple enough: because of the above capitalist trap, nobody goes homeless or hungry in this society. You can afford really horrible housing that you hate, but you won't starve in the street. There is no welfare trap: you always collect UBI, rich, poor, employed or not. $833/mo isn't enough? Get a job. On unemployment or SSDI, this means we take away your money--my $430/wk becomes $450/wk if I get a $12/hr job, making my effective wage $0.50/hr, hence why I held out for a $60k+ salary.
So under a UBI system, there is a strong incentive to work, and no disincentive to work. There is also a social safety net so that everyone's financial situation is more stable. People no longer live in fear of a broken economy; and even in a poor economic situation, UBI remains durable--it takes much worse to weaken the benefits of UBI than it does to break an economy run on our current welfare program. Minimum wage is unnecessary. Inflation causes total income and thus the output of an 18% UBI tax and the payout of UBI to increase. A shrinking middle class just diverts more income to the rich, who are still paying the same UBI tax, and thus that income still supports the UBI system.
UBI is a great way to improve the mental health of our country as a whole by improving financial security without harming the incentive to work--perhaps, compared to our current welfare systems, to even increase the incentive to work. Such an improvement in mental health should decrease criminal behavior by reducing tension and desperation.
I'm the man with all the answers.
II do have one around my neck
Oh yeah?
Latin and Greek have wider vocabularies than any conlang. Also, Lojban in practice is highly open to interpretation; there are other formal mathematical languages used to define strict interpretations by using logical operations to build relations.