That would be KDE.

This looks like something out of Sci-Fi. In The Gap Cycle, there's the use of specifically harmonized crystals that can resonate across a limited distance. In one instance, that distance is 3.4 light years due to inability to make the crystals more perfect than that with current technology. It's so hard to do that they just use gap courier drones, which drop into tach and make several consecutive multi-light-year jumps over the course of a few hours to send messages thousands of light years.

That's what Ray Bradbury said.

You have no liability for using OpenSSL. That it was affected by a bug does not put you at legal risk, as it is a reasonable product decision.

If you had used JerrysSSLMadeInMyBasementAsACollegeProject, and it was found vulnerable, and you leaked personal information, a court would likely find you negligent. Of consideration would be an analysis of the product on the face: if it looks like a Geocities site done in FrontPage and says "I made this SSL implementation as a college project", you are negligent. If it boasts tons of security research and explanations on why this is much more secure and reliable and resistant to attack and programming bugs than other SSL libraries, you could be found not-negligent.

Liability doesn't mean shit went wrong and you're responsible; it means shit went wrong and you did something any sane person would know not to do. Enterprise would not be liable for personal injury caused by Toyota Priuses in their fleet if the court case found that Enterprise maintained the cars properly and discovered that Priuses had an inherent issue: Toyota is a respected brand and, until the Prius issue was discovered, the Prius was considered a safe car. Once the issue was discovered, Enterprise would have to send them for recall, after which they could issue Priuses again without exposing themselves to liability from Prius manufacturer defects.

TrueCrypt is well-known and respected as a secure product. As long as nobody tells you not to use it, it's reasonable to use it to secure data. If a serious TrueCrypt security flaw comes out and you deploy new TrueCrypt installations knowing the flaw won't be fixed, you're negligent and liable--as TrueCrypt is now out of maintenance forever, migrating onto TrueCrypt would now be considered negligent and carry liability.

Getting Linux to boot from anything it can mount is easy. You put the kernel and initrd onto an unencrypted /boot partition, which is loaded by grub. The kernel comes up, asks the user for the key (USB, password, whatever), mounts the volume, pivot_root /initrd /dev/mapper/root, and continues.

I would just use electrician's pliers to yank someone's front teeth out, then tell them they're lying, then continue the torture for a few days. If they don't break, they don't have anything; if they do have something, they'll break.

When faced with plausible deniability, replace the rubber hose with bamboo and scourge.

TrueCrypt has been considered safe by a large body of people, and thus is reasonable to use for general self-driven risk management. For external RM, you ask your client: the government, the organization whose data you're protecting, etc., will have their own opinion to share if you suggest TrueCrypt as your encryption solution.

Eh it was back in the 2000s when I was still young and posting on Craigslist looking for women. Just after I'd gotten over the shock of being hit on by dudes twice my age. I was like, "Oh, another old man. Go away old man." and it turned into an angry old man rant at me. I basically deconstructed his arguments, pointed out inconsistencies, and told him that he's old and stupid and lives in an imaginary world; it was good practice dealing with idiots.

I had a 50-ish year old dude call me an arrogant little twatwaddle for thinking I wouldn't enjoy him giving me a blowjob. He said he's been suckin' off straight dudes since high school or some stupid thing so he knows I'm just being a prick.

He told me age brings experience and understanding. I told him age makes him old; understanding comes from correctly interpreting experience, up to and including knowing its boundaries. He wrote back a hilarious 4 page single-paragraph rant.

There was a time when I felt it was inappropriate to consider myself superior in earnest. Eventually I realized it's important to know where you stand, and where you don't; refusing to acknowledge the truth is always ignorance.

Scientifically, selection of genetic traits over generations based on fitness or utility is a theory with strong supporting evidence. It's also known that many animal cells--including humans--have receptors which accept messenger proteins to indicate a need, causing changes in gene expression and even permanent alteration of DNA.

That is to say: the brain can decide to recode your DNA. It can decide to create new DNA for new purpose. This can, hypothetically, occur in the gonads, upgrading sex cells. Selection can occur during life.

The evidence for that is weak. Such a theory, however, would suggest different than the current theory. The current theory suggests that a certain adaptation occurs as random variation or mutation and, if advantageous, improves the chances of reproduction. This theory suggests that such traits may pass on and remain dormant, and then express themselves due to environmental pressures on the living being--that evolution is an environmental adaptation to some degree, not simply a matter of selection pressure.

It also makes possible--but extremely unlikely--that such adaptations could come from subconscious impulses, and so a woman could desire a slimmer figure or bigger breasts, and pass such traits to her daughter. This would explain why the physical statures of humans continue to change and evolve even in a world where nearly everyone breeds effectively (the theory that humans are still actively evolving is considered valid, but the environment doesn't supply selective pressure to cull off parts of the population while allowing other parts to breed as quickly as would explain it).

You called something a fact which is a theory. A very good, strongly supported theory which may indeed be factual; but it's a scientific theory.

My reading comprehension sucks.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

If it appears to be a fact, it's a currently-valid scientific theory. We try to gather supporting evidence, but also look for inconsistencies. That means, yes, we're always looking for inconsistencies in evolutionary theory.

Evolution inadequately explains the origin of species: we have theories about earth life coming from space, about random assembly from lightning and methane, and other shit. All the theories about how life actually formed are weak--much weaker than selection pressure in an established system. For example: multi-cellular animal life tends to require cardiovascular systems, which are heavily complex and don't provide an advantage until they're complete--and it's a big step between "heart and veins" and "complete".

To correct this inadequacy, we're constantly looking for more evidence: missing link species, meteor strikes (because space bacteria would immediately simplify how Earth developed life), experiments re-creating the primordial conditions (generating life in lab would tell us that's a real thing), and so on. We may eventually find evidence of divine intervention, and then later trace that back to the evolution of consciousness in the hot universe (when expansion began, photons had more mass than protons because they had more energy) due to some strange quantum effects, and then discover the existence of non-physical energy-based life, and find out we were engineered by an intelligent species in a dying universe so that life could survive in the new, cold universe.

This is why everything is a scientific theory. To claim anything is a scientific fact is to show a lack of understanding of basic science.

It's all really due to the effects of gravity and acceleration on radioactive decay, but people think it's due to time dilation.

They have not been shown to be wrong; this is different than showing the hypothesis to be accurate.

The question doesn't measure belief in evolution. In a world which evolved from dust and gamma radiation, it asks if humans as well evolved from apes or if Jehovah reached into the dust and sculpted Man to fit into this evolved paradise.