One way to detect a backdoored compiler to a fairly high certainty is diverse double-compiling, a method described by David A. Wheeler that bootstraps a compiler's source code through several other compilers. For example, GCC compiled with (GCC compiled with Visual Studio) should be bit for bit identical to GCC compiled with (GCC compiled with Clang) and to GCC compiled with (GCC compiled with Intel's compiler). But this works only if the compiler's source code is available. So to thwart allegations of a backdoor in Visual Studio, perhaps a better choice is to improve MinGW (GCC for Windows) or Clang for Windows to where it can compile a working copy of TrueCrypt.

Africa itself was a key player.

And the Left is the real Right. and, and, Frazier Glenn Cross is a demonrat because Robert Byrd!

It's all about projection. I take that as a positive, in that it shows you are capable of shame.

That did what? Not suck? Can you give us a list of 10 F2P games that did not suck and not include DOTA2?

And how much lower is the bar for F2P and why? Clearly, the teams making these games are trying to make money, and if they believe they can make money, apparently there is some value to having people play these games?

So what exactly is "free" as in "free to play"? Ain't nothing free.

The code is being audited in America.

Is there something preventing an audit elsewhere? Is it illegal to send the source code overseas? And how are these audits done? There aren't a lot of details in TFA. Is it like a big Wiki where anybody can look at the code and report what they find, or are the auditors vetted with specific sections assigned them?

I'm asking seriously. I'm not a developer, so I don't know. But I worry about security and snooping.

In light of the flying car vaporware weve been promised for decades, Google is going to provide Jetsons View in addition to street view, in an attempt to pacify some bitterness in the world.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm late for my annual MBA-sponsored lobotomy.

Not just a lobotomy, but an annual re-lobotomy just to make sure! Brilliant!

Russian is actually a language that showcases the opposite of English: Complex grammar and full freedom with word order. English is the exact opposite. Very rigid word order, mostly because there is almost no flexion and word order being the only way to discriminate between subject and object(s).

As someone who had to learn both as a second language, I can say that it was heaps easier to learn English. Learning to put the words at the right position is way easier than finding the right suffix for whatever I want to say.

Well, I'd kinda ponder listening to a porn star concerning the validity of a few vaccines for a few select diseases. You can consider that some kind of expertise...

How about killing two birds with one stone? Stand the zombies in a circle, and fire the rounds at them. Count the number of dead zombies. Now you've got an approximation for Pi AND a bunch of dead zombies. Win-win.

She is not against vaccines. She just wants safe vaccines. The fact that no vaccine will ever meet her definition of 'safe' is your problem, not hers.

I don't remember exactly when the move started; but 'mainstream' anti-vaxers switched to the "green our vaccines"/"reduce the toxins"/"too many too soon" line some years ago to help distinguish themselves from the fringe 'Vaccines sully the bodily purity and weaken the vital essences with Aborted Fetus cells and zionist NWO population control schemes!!!' anti-vaxers.

Shockingly, this move has not led them to embrace any of the vaccines that have been reformulated by popular demand to reduce or eliminate whatever originally had them worried, nor has it led to any apparent interest in working with the toxicology people to determine what level of 'greenness'/'reduced toxins' is acceptable. Nor has there been a rush of interest to vaccinate according to some sort of reduced-pace schedule(though some individual doctors have various ones that they prefer).

Obviously, it would be hugely unethical and pointlessly cruel to advocate the use of vaccines whose risks outweigh their benefits (and, since vaccination for a selection of potentially-serious childhood diseases, as well as less common but more serious diseases, if we have the vaccine available and you are in a suitable risk group, is so enormously common, this is an area of medicine where studying safety both before and after approval is money well spent); but, despite their rhetorical shift, there appears to be no evidence that the 'We don't hate vaccines, we just want safe ones!' groups are actually at all interested in even setting goalposts that vaccines would have to meet to be accepted, much less reviewing evidence as to whether or not existing vaccines do meet those standards.

Honestly, I liked them better before their shift. There is a certain intellectual honesty to embracing a position that others see as lunacy and then fighting like a rabid weasel against all evidence. Not a...healthy...kind of intellectual honesty; but a kind of intellectual honesty. Mealy-mouthed disingenuous bullshit, though, lacks that virtue, and aggressively so. Even more cynically, it uses the cause of actual epidemiology, toxicology, and medical monitoring, safety standards, approval protocols, and other (vital) elements of keeping medicine honest and more useful than it is harmful as camouflage for a load of anti-scientific nonsense.

If they were willing to actually come out with some some sort of target (even if it seems pointlessly low according to current data), they'd just be the cautious wing of an actually scientific exercise in epidemiology and toxicology. As it is, no goals are defined, no data accepted, no improvement is ever good enough. It's pure smokescreen.

I agree that it isn't a bigger issue in terms of expected ongoing pain/users affected, since the issue with trusting too many shady/incompetent CAs is showing no signs of real solution ('pinning' is an OK hack, so far as it goes; but it doesn't go very far on most users' systems and nobody seems to have an actual ready-for-prime-time solution that shows signs of making it out the door).

I was thinking 'bigger' in that only SSLed stuff accessed by excessively-trusting systems can be compromised by a rogue or incompetent CA, while anything can be compromised (and relatively silently, some atypically clueful person tends to notice the shady certs eventually, which is much less likely with a perfect copy of the actual private keys) if you have the same private key material as the legitimate host.

So, barring the possibility of some particularly nasty targeted exploit against some specific organizations, affected population is likely to be smaller; but the set of vulnerable systems is necessarily larger. I really didn't make what I meant by 'bigger' clear originally, did I...

I suspect that the okay-ness of this fact depends on whether you are a disinterested observer (in which case your points are valid and likely account for many silent users, along with some amount of abandoned accounts, squatters, etc.) or whether you are somebody at Twitter, who would probably prefer to keep their (laughable) early post-IPO value of something north of 30 billion dollars, rather than have further bad news after announcing in Febuary of this year that you'd lost half a billion dollars in the last year, and that your >P/E ratio is kind of tepid.

For a site that requires sign-up to do all but the most crippled reading/following (do they do public RSS, such that you could 'follow' without an account? Barely matters since the public mostly doesn't and their design makes just-sign-up-with-us easier for most non-geeks than getting RSS up and running, especially across devices), 56% participation is actually higher than I'd expect, and certainly far from shockingly low. It's just that any pretense of being worth more than the scrap value of their office furniture is largely based on optimistic subscriber numbers, so I suspect that they are Not Happy about somebody talking about it. If some analyst comes out with "Percentage of twitter accounts that are actually bots" tomorrow, I imagine they'd be less happy still.

Not (all) twits gonna tweet. It's actually something of a heartwarming discovery.

8 hours covers a lot of late night traffic. When it's dark from, say, 5pm to 7am, you can get to about midnight before the power is out. So what's left is the early morning traffic that's out of light, i.e. that has to deal with what we have already.

Still I'd consider it a boost in safety. The chance to be lost in the side ditch of the road with nobody coming by for hours is heaps lower at 6am compared to 1am.