It's called engineering.

Just because we are in the era of the Interweebz, that does not mean everything is a web app whose solutions can be put together in seconds. Specially something like a compiler, a shared library or an embedded system. You have to think of regression testing and crap like that, the backlog of issues that are begging fixing, etc, etc, etc. As a result, you do not touch things unless you truly need to, in a controlled manner.

If it is a web-based system with limited visibility, yeah, slap that fix and test it right there, just browse the page to see that it works. A web service or composite other systems depend on, hmmm, first device a functional test with SoapUI just to validate behavior before and after the change. An enterprise system with hundreds of developers and thousands of issues in back logs, slow down, time to prioritize a bit. Something system-level, and used by millions, hold on your danged horses.

I'm not saying the Glibc developers did the right thing at first - I mean, calling a bug "unexploitable" just like that, that is arrogance, not competence or prudence.

But that is a far cry from saying oh, we know what it is, we can put some code in place in seconds. Slapping some code changes =/= fix. A fix is a code change preceded by a cost analysis and followed by a regression/acceptance test, Internet or no Internet.

In this particular case, perhaps. In general, see my previous sentences above.

Hmmmm, not really. You fix bugs according to cost of fixing it which includes regression testing to ensure you do not break something else with your fix (effort), the likelihood of the bug manifesting itself in the wild (priority) and the ramifications when the bug manifests itself (severity.)

More systems have been broken by people "fixing" things without doing the proper analysis than by actually looking at the backlog and deciding what shall be fixed (fixed in this release), what will be fixed (fixed in this or some other release), what should be fixed (fix not bound to a release yet), what should not be needing a fix (no consequences of fixing it right now, gives room to fix more important things), what will not be fixed (not in this release), and what shall not be fixed (too risky, not worth it).

We are in the business of engineering complex systems, from inception to realization to deployment to support and decomission. This is how you manage how to engineer complex things.

It is one thing to say we will not fix it right now because of the costs and the unlikely of seeing this in the wild. It is quite another to call it unexploitable. The former is pragmatism. The later is hubris.

Just because the real world is full of illiterate people, that does not mean the precise meaning of words suddenly vanish. The mindless masses murder the language all the time using the wrong words to express what they want to say (if they even had the capacity to build a cogent statement).

"Imply" is "imply" and it is distinct from "hint" - check your dictionary. Yes, real world people are too stupid to use a dictionary, but that doesn't invalidate the definitions in it.

That's a different statement. If A doesn't cause B but there is a C that causes both, this is a causation. Of course our measurements for A and B could still be correlated without any causal relation that connects them, but that's improbable.

No, it is not. For that matter, how often does an alligator or an anaconda eat? Possibly a couple of times a year due to their cold blooded metabolism. Lions eat every few days as an strategy in the wild to save energy - gorge when you can and sleep 20 hours for 2-3 days between meals.

I mean seriously, there is more to eating frequency in the wild than high protein content in meals.

It is true that it is more difficult to have portion control with any type of food versus food with low GI and high protein content. But difficult =/= extremely difficult. People do it, and have done successfully. Unlike animals in the wild, we are creatures of self-awareness and self-control. Self-control is what makes or breaks a diet. That is where the true difficulties lie, not purely in the nutrition make-up of meals.

Once people get used to portion control, that thing is almost automatic regardless of food content in general (barring obvious edge-case examples such as nothing but carrot cake... or only salad or only tuna 7 times a day.)

If you are smart enough to read what you read and weight it accordingly, then you are smart enough to dismiss that which is evidently preposterous, or in the case of the OP I originally replied to, an obvious accusation of wrong doing from Sony's part. That is not just hinting at a possibility but passing/suggesting an unfounded accusation, and for which there is no evidence but it is passed around to rile up the e-geek-masses.

No need to weight it in in elaboration as it can be dismissed accordingly for what it is, a silly hint of a remote, unlikely possibility passed around as a juvenile act of malice.

There are more things horrifying in this world than Internet censorship. It is an important topic, but it is one that deserve appropriate discussion, not geek uber-hoopla. So please spare us from the unnecessary histrionics.

If you need to rely on histrionics to make your point, then your point is irrelevant, or you are an idiot who cannot communicate properly, or a cheap entertainer, or an attention whore. Or a combination of them all.

Because of a lack of common sense? Because you don't care about Occam's Razor's and rational thinking? Because you the Law of Parsimony has no place in logical/scientific thinking?

Obligatory : https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Oh well, in that case, let me point out the possibility that Elvis is still alive, that the Moon landings were a hoax filmed at a NASA's garage, that 9/11 was masterminded by the Rothschild family and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a real, historical document.

Hell, here is another possibility. Obama ordered it because Benghazi. Or better yet, maybe Bush ordered Cheney to assemble a bunch of hackers back in 2007, but these hackers went rogue for lack of sex or whatever, beyond the original, official parameters of their mission, which did not include making fake bomb threats.

It is possible. You cannot prove it to me that this is not possible.

To borrow your own words, I am merely pointing out the possibility. Again, I cannot prove it (that the possibility is false), but I can say it (pointing it out.)

Anything that is not mathematically provable to be impossible is, by definition, possible. But just because something is possible, it does not make it reasonable. It certainly does not imply that such thing is even noteworthy of consideration.

Again, Law of Parsimony, or Occam's Razor or whatever you want to call it. If people want to spend brain cells in merely pointing out the possibility of really stupid, inane, batshit crazy conspiracy theories, whatever rocks their proverbial boats. They should not expect not to be called on it, though.

Oh well, in that case, let me point out the possibility that Elvis is still alive, that the Moon landings were a hoax filmed at a NASA's garage, that 9/11 was masterminded by the Rothschild family, the Chupacabra is related to the Yeti and Kim Kardashian, and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a real, historical document.

Hell, here is another possibility. Obama ordered the hacking and bomb threat because Benghazi. Or better yet, maybe Bush ordered Cheney to assemble a bunch of hackers back in 2007, but these hackers went rogue for lack of sex or whatever, beyond the original, official parameters of their mission, which did not include making fake bomb threats.

It is possible. You cannot prove it to me that this is not possible.

To borrow your own words, I am merely pointing out the possibility. Again, I cannot prove it (that the possibility is false), but I can say it (pointing it out.)

Anything that is not mathematically provable to be impossible is, by definition, possible. But just because something is possible, it does not make it reasonable. It certainly does not imply that such thing is even noteworthy of consideration.

Again, Law of Parsimony, or Occam's Razor or whatever you want to call it. If people want to spend brain cells in merely pointing out the possibility of really stupid, inane, batshit crazy conspiracy theories, whatever rocks their proverbial boats. They should not expect not to be called on it, though.

From US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 40 844 - Penalties

This is not including whatever state laws that were violated on top of Federal laws. One (well deserving) word: Darwin.

My thoughts exactly. These kids better find a cave or a hole on the ground somewhere near the Khyber Pass or Timbuktu. Making bomb threats/pranks? There is a whole lot of angry coming right at them right now, the likes you can only escape by being a government entity, not some stupid script kiddie.

Obligatory