That seems to be more along the lines of how quite a few TV shows (although not CSI/NCIS) and movies still think you need to be on a call for a certain amount of time for the cops to be able to trace it, or how on one episode of CSI they went through a long and drawn-out way of tracking down the printer a note came from without even looking for the yellow dots. It seems the writers of these shows tend to purposefully "ignore" real life mass-surveillance law enforcement aids.

Their motivation for this is left as an exercise for the reader...

Surely you mean Good. I need the cash.

(Not much point making the bet if you're broke now, if no-one tries to reproduce the result for years...)

Um, OK, that would cause a problem, but why on earth would you read into a character buffer? You're using C++. Why not read into a std::string?

Yes, you have to read into character buffers in C, because that's all you have. Character buffers, or arrays, are just as insecure in C++ as in C. Which is why you shouldn't use them. Use vectors, lists, or - for characters, strings. C++ has safe abstractions. Use them FFS!

Hmm....I'm aware of the problems of gets(), but haven't heard of possible issues with >> before. Can you give an example or link to an article that explains the issues, so I know what patterns to avoid in the future?

The word discriminatory has a different, more specific, meaning in legal documents - like standards licenses - than the meaning you are ascribing to it.

FRAND is in respect to the licensing of the standard, not the software.

If a standard is licensed in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory way, then the licensor can impose a term such as "you owe the standard author $0.10 for every unit you ship." If that licensing term applies to anyone who wishes to distribute any software that implements the standard, it is fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.

However, such a licensing term on the standard, which is still FRAND, makes the standard unimplementable as Free Software, because the developers suddenly need to pay the standard owner for each copy of the software distributed. Further, anyone else who wishes to redistribute the software to help their neighbour, while permitted to do so by the software license, is suddenly in breach of the standard licensing terms and legally liable to the standard owner.

I recently ventured to ReactOS website and have seen lots of activity in the SVN [...] lots of commits on daily basis in the trunk now,

"Lots"? Really? Compared to what? How many do you think is "lots"? The Linux kernel was averaging ~70 commits per day from 2.6.13 - 2.6.27 (source - that's every day, for more than 3 years) and I'm pretty sure the pace has picked up a fair bit from that in the ~3 years since then, as hinted at by the right hand side of that graph.

308 Kelvin

Please be more specific

Hmmm...

God creates "light" first (1:3), and then notices day/night (1:4), but doesn't create the sun, moon and stars (1:16) until after the seas/Earth (1:9-10) and plant life (1:11-12).

Then He creates water life and fowl (1:20) but uses whales (1:21) as an example of an animal that sprung forth from the water before any land animals ever existed.

Then land animals (1:24-25) and finally humans (1:26...)

So the Bible has, in order: light, day/night, sea, earth, plants, sun, moon, stars, water animals (incl. whales), fowl, land animals, man.

Whereas the order we see is (I think): light, stars, sun, earth, day/night, sea, moon, plants, water animals (excl. whales), land animals, fowl, whales, man.

Aside from getting the first and last entries right, the only elements that follow each other in order are day/night followed by sea. The rest ... doesn't look that much better than guesswork to me.

I prefer Carl Sagan:

Consider again that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar", every "supreme leader", every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe:, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

- Pale Blue Dot (1994) (Emphasis mine)

Yes, getting people out as far as Voyager is right now will be tricky, but the sentiment's the same :-)

Ahem.

...even if the study itself didn't, or was faked.

According to the BBC article, "IE supporters, who have threatened AptiQuant with legal action."

Right. Threatening the authors of a study with legal action, rather than pointing out flaws in the study, or doing a better study, or doing research into the possible reasons why the link might have existed, really makes it clear that those IE supporters are complete morons, who have no clue what research actually is, or how it works.

People showing off their stupidity proves that they're stupid.

Mod parent up.

Huh? The user's browser has, on behalf of the user, explicitly contacted Epic's webserver, requested a copy of the javascript from their site, and run it. It's not like Epic's servers attempted to connect to the user's computer, hacked a firewall, cracked a password or anything. The user (via their browser) has initiated the entire thing here.

If the user does not want their browser to retrieve and run javascript from every third-party server mentioned by websites they choose to visit, maybe they should get a browser that allows them to whitelist sites to run javascript from. They've been available, with Firefox+NoScript, for at least 5 years now.