From reading the HTTP/2.0 thread, it seems like some of us "normal" users should respond to the working group last comment call and point out that encryption alone is not enough. That privacy and anonymity are at least equal to encryption, if not more important.

Was tempted to post as an Anonymous Coward for effect.

Are your for requiring every car to check the drivers blood alcohol content before it will allow the engine to start or to allow it to shift and be put into motion? Are you for requiring all cars to automatically brake if something is detected in its path? These items would add more to the cost of a car and negatively impact all drivers even ones that never drink, but more Americans are killed with cars than are killed by guns every year. Would you do it for the children?

How does requiring encryption for email ensure SPAM goes away?

I do not think you understand this thing called "science". In it you only change one variable at a time. Your comment admitting fuel supply has increased and then also stating but GW is also making the fires worse. It makes everyone who reads this GW propaganda a little bit dumber. That is not science. Every GW computer model has been wrong when compared to real world observations, they aren't science. The only fact we can say about every GW programmatic model that can be absolutely proven is the fact that these models will never be able to take all of the variables into account and therefore aren't good examples of scientific methods"

So here is the problem with libtards, they create a problem and then use selective results that are actually the result of their own BS as proof, more of what they want, needs to be done.

This is true with the wild fires and the selection of data to help show how bad Global Warming is getting. The government back in the 90s decided their brilliant fire policies could be even more brilliant. Instead of letting small fires burn (some seeds and bugs only grow/hatch after a fire), but no no no, people in universities and in Washington, these intellectuals, were smarter than nature or those western ranching folks with no college degree. See these collectivists were so smart they said "New policy let's put every fire out ASAP". "Oh, and no you cannot remove brush and grass and 'fuel' that would normally have been periodically consumed and used up and removed". Instead the new "intellectuals" said "protect nature" ... by acting in an unnatural way. So all these little fires were put out and things looked so good ( ... in the short-term), that I am sure they patted themselves on the back and were like "Boy are we awesome, we are so much smarter than that farmer who said this was a dangerous idea".

So the fuel just built up everywhere and then when something happens to ignite it, be it lightening or a cigarette, the little fires have a greater probability of becoming bigger fires. Time means more fuel, greater risk. Tick tick tick. So then after awhile we get these huge fires. What do those smart intellectuals do? Do they review their suggestions of the past? Take into account the bureaucratic BS that contributed to these fires? No! First, they smoke a bowl and later .... they say "Let's help that farmer who lost his ranch. Let's help those people who lost there homes. Let's explain to them that it is all mankind's fault." They then go on to explain BS like carbon foot prints and how that is why fires are worse. It is also why flooding is worse or droughts or pretty much anything, and the only way to fix it is to accept global collectivism. Yup, only with global collectivism can we prevent forest fires.

Are you sure the more frequent larger fires aren't actually the result of past fire prevention? I know some fire fighters and park rangers who told me that policy changes in the 90s prevented them from letting small fires go naturally (these fires weren't even important enough to make the national news). Instead the policy was modified to "Put all observed fires out ASAP." In addition they were banned from removing brush that would normally have been consumed by these smaller fires. I remember them saying that if not changed the policies would lead to bigger fires in the future. A sorta pay for it later mess. So my question is, if it is fair to say many "Scientist" claim fire increases are because of "climate change", is it not fair to say there are "Philosophers" who reason fire increases are because of "bureaucratic BS"?

Actually, they don't even say "fuck you". They suggest you use your resources to implement that feature within your OS. Which, makes sense. I have a friend who runs tons of stuff on some Alpha servers he got in exchange for helping the university port off those systems. Basically what libreSSL is suggesting to him is a decision tree. If underlying library or function that we assume the OS should handle is not available on your system. Here are some suggestions: 1). Fund adding/implementing those needed parts to expand support (seems reasonable that exceptions help cover these costs) 2). Consider moving to support core line of OS and/or hardware 3). Help expand support and code solution (again seems reasonable) Now, obviously not every option is available to everyone. If you don't have money, you might not be able to fund it yourself (though you could solicite other parties and pool resources). If you're not comfortable coding, 3 is probably not possible (unless you have the time and interest in learning). Just saying not so much "FU" as it is focused approach based on plethora of reasons where exceptions can help add and expand support. Instead of people saying "How rude they aren't offering improvements for Mac OS9, I don't like them". Perhaps look at what they are providing cleaned up SSL solution with compatible APIs for variety of modern OSes ... (More to follow). I come from networking world, so to me their approach makes the most sense for long term. OSI model of layered approach, seems appropriate to use OS random number generator and accepted libraries rather than record for exceptions. Over time if openssl continues with its different approach, time will tell who is better. Could be both survive (as SSL is used everywhere) or one proves better. It will not just be picked on coding value. It will be host of other things as well.

Thank you for posting this. Very insightful and enjoyable to see real world solutions that got me thinking about forking options vs sticking with and fixing initial project. Will be very interesting, my hope is libressl gets enough funding to have some positive competition and/or some cooperation with openssl folks. That way the greater community/ecosystem will win in the end. Love seeing open soure community working to resolve this complex problem. Its the embodiment of principles raised in "The cathedral and the bazaar". Side note: Comment at end about openssl being established in Maryland (NSA?) and suggestion of incompetence vs maliciousness really got my head spinning.

Where is the correct science in "global warming", from where I am standing it is all political BS.

Several examples:

1). Why is it that all of the computer models to date have overestimated the temperature increase (i.e. these models have failed to fit what has been observed,. The best example is the hockey stick curve from back in the day. When in reality the averages are flat).
2). Why was it that the "scientists" at Cern were so dishonest regarding GW? There are e-mails where this "scientists" decide to use site numbers instead of recorded GPS or physical locations, then move the sites southward for each year of recorded observations. So when peer reviewed it would appear temperatures were increasing at the same location. When peers asked the the specific locations, they got responses like Siberia. That is not quality science, that is not reproducible.
3). Where is the control, where is the one single variable change? When we cannot accurately predict if it will rain in a certain region tomorrow or the temperature over the next 5 days, how is it wrong to suspect we cannot do it for 1, 5,10 or 100 years?
4). If this is science,why the push to get everyone to agree? Why not simply suggest people look at the data and decided for themselves? Why the need to push it down our throats? Why the uproar if a state lets teachers, parents and students think for themselves how they wish to review the information?
5). Need I remind you that Galileo was in the minority regarding his Sun centered model? Do you think those in the majority punishing him and his supporters, putting them down, insulting them, in very much the exact why you do? "97% of us think this way", which, does nothing to indicate you are correct. Those in the majority had all sorts of exceptions, just like GW supporters do today. They would claim there is "a flywheel type force ...", just like you today say things like "The extra heat is going into the oceans, very very very deep, yes yes that is it, when we have our computer models push the heat into the deepest parts of the ocean where we have the luxury of not having temperature samples, thus allowing us room to explain away the drift between reality and BS simulations."
6). Why is it that you use lies to support your image? My favorite being video of ice that is expanding and then failing into the ocean when talking about ice melting. My second favorite is when you show that a sad little polar bear on an ice sheet and say "the polar bear are running out of food and space and dying off, and that is why they are now coming up on human towns and locations, they just don't have enough food." And much how you fudged the site locations with Cern's bogus data, you ignore the fact that there are more polar bear today then ever recorded and that is why they are coming up to people and you even push to have them declared endangered, ignoring the truth that there are more now, but instead point to the few places where numbers are down, while completely ignoring the truthful where numbers are actually rising.
7). Why does every "solution" happen to fight your political end? My favorite, being "cows eat grass and grains and fart a lotas a result so we need to tax people for eating beef." Oh, really, why not flip it? Since I eat beef, every cow I consume isn't farting, so I am helping whereas vegan aren't. But wait, every vegan and vegetarian I know does fart more then the average meat eater. So why is the "solution" not to tax kale and spinach? The answer is that this has nothing to do with a real problem, it is all about using an imagined global issue to advance some honestly retarded political agendas and as an excuse to rob individuals of control, which brings me the the final point.
8). What is worse? The temp. going up a few degrees in my lifetime or governments and global organizations robbing individuals or their liberties? What is more damaging to be hot or have to adjust or to be effectively a slave to society? What is more damaging to the children that come after us? A hotter planet (assuming your BS was true) or the retardation of their rights and liberties? When viewed that way clearly "global warming" is not he biggest and most pressing threat to people at this time, it is the rise of collectivism.
9). One last point, why the push to rebrand your GW science? Why is it that GW supporters are now pushing towards using the term climate change? Because they aren't using science, they are using emotion, with GW, you can only point to things that are hotter or the result of it being hotter, with climate change, you can point to every disaster or event, why the storm? CC, why the colder winter? CC, etc. Then you ask who believes in climate change? Hell, I believe in climate change, I call it the seasons. So you can quickly get a high % of perceived support, like say 97%, but in truth that 97% is not describing or saying they agree with you.

Correction: Good parenting means not letting your children become shit, regardless of the state of the school, corporations or politicians in control down the road.

I would go off what amazon.com reports on browser usage in the US.

Why does this anonymous coward get to decide what is good and what is bad for the rest of us?

This is one part I hate about socialism and communism, these centralized economic systems allow for people (or committees of people) no smarter and often less intelligent than the common individual to make arbitrary decisions for the greater good.

The beauty of capitalism (and why the US should work to get back to a pure capitalist society) is that each of us as individuals can decide for ourselves, vote with our money, with our goods, with our services and support things we like and ignore things we do not.

And since it would be the pension funds, that would mean this whole occupy movement is against pension fund members. You know, people like middle-class teachers, middle-class union members, state and federal government employees, etc.

This whole "war on the 1%" is such BS, for several reasons:

1. After the current 1% is removed or looted, there will still be a 1%.
2. The collateral damage to people who work or earn a living from the 1% will be tremendous. I know you are going to think I am crazy when I say this, but in my experience, rich people have often hired me to do work for them and not once has a poor individual given me a good job.
3. The reality of the situation is that while the occupy camp claims to be against the 1%, this claim is done to make a false majority and gain support. When in reality occupy types are truly against "anyone with more stuff". Once you recognize this, you will understand why they attack employees of Google.

There are several useful additions to 8.1 that you would probably enjoy.

1. Right clicking the Metro/Start icon (8.1) or Metro screen corner(8), gives you quick access to most common management tools, insanely convient.
2. Search ability from Metro screen is fantastic, just bring it up and begin typing.
3. Useful with touch screen monitor
4. Snap windowing options, great if you use a large screen and want to have apps side by side, OK in 8, great in 8.1
5. Simple and clean switching between user accounts with just mouse
6. Powershell is awesome, while product of .NET framework and not specific Windows version, PS makes windows a great scripting environment

I do a fair amount of Linux administration and back in the day MS gave me a free copy of Vista Business and Office 2007 to lure me over, I took advantage of it. I upgraded it to 8 for $39.99 and then 8.1 for free. I use this machine for Visual Studio when I need it and also for watching media, either DVDs, youtube or Amazon.

The issues I hear about Windows 8 and 8.1 are the same issues I hear about Gnome3. In both cases, I suggest people use them for 30 days. You will find useful benefits and they are both getting tweaks and upgrades all the time.

Why are we fixated on trying to artificially diversify professions?

The PC BS has to stop at some point. There are some professions and things that men prefer more than women and others that women prefer more than men.

I will give you one example of this insanity:

In the mid-nighties a friend of my parents came over all upset. She was a manager for a publisher and all except one of her editors were female. She explained that men did not have a strong desire to edit textbooks. The only male she could find that was both good and interested cost her over double the rate of any other female editor. The reason was that she had to hire him away from another employer so that she could meet a diversity requirement from some of the states who purchased her textbooks.

Well, this male editor ended up getting an even higher offer from a different publisher. As she sat at my parents table saying "Men just do not enjoy or wish to be editors as much as women do. How am I ever going to find enough men who are both good and interested in doing this job?"

It was at this point that my dad who worked in IT at the time walked in and heard this statement. He said "I have the same diversity issue at work, they would like to have more women in IT, but most women don't want to be in IT."

At this point my mom suggested the simple solution, she explained how my dad was paying good women more money than men to work in IT when he could find them and sometimes not as good women when he had nothing else. So my parents friend ended up hiring three not so good male editors and just had whatever they edited initially sent back through to other editors.

Was that fair? Was it right? No, it was what the government wanted.

People walk around saying "Diversity is our goal" or "Diversity unites us". Yeah, that last one goes up at a state office building each April, I go to their lobby just to laugh at their mini-ministry of truth.

The truth is so much simpler. Hire people who are interested in learning/growing in the areas related to their work. Don't worry about how the numbers turn out. The only reason companies worry about diversity is because of some BS forms some bureaucrats asks them to fill out. Don't let your world be shaped by this nonsense. If asked be honest, explain you do not discriminate, you only hire the best qualified.

(I agree, I do need an editor)