what does this mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

The article, headline, story and comments are all bullshit.

Assuming the graph is not also bullshit, the correct story is that in the first 6 months of 2014 (1H 2014 on the graph), IE has had more vulnerabilities than all of 2013. IF this keeps up, then by the end of 2014, IE will have had more than a 100% increase in the number of vulnerabilities over last year.

You do realize there are several flavors of encryption, right? Microsoft SQL Server TDE is an example. You can login, perform queries, update data in any table, but all data is encrypted - it is - transparent as the name indicates.

That also ignores things like encrypted volumes, etc. Just because individual files aren't encrypted with unique keys, doesn't mean that encryption isn't there.

When you want to build a bridge, you don't just throw a bunch of construction workers at it and trust them to make the best judgements, even though you might trust each one of them individually to build a sawhorse or something equally trivial.

You also don't have the president of the company come in and declare that this week we're switching to agile bridge building and fuck six, we're going to seven sigmas so we can be on the bleeding edge and shift our paradigms into high gear to synchronize our release schedule and get out ahead of the pack as we swing around the final stretch into the processification.

If it's not exactly the same then what we've got wouldn't be very useful.

I'm with the "destroy it" crowd. If someone attacks us with smallpox, nuke the fuck out of them.

But just no, to the conversation mirror - most parents already don't keep their eyes on the road, we don't need to give them another excuse.

Ah, memories of my childhood. Things like my father flying down the freeway at 60 turning around in his seat and screaming "You look at me when I'm talking to you boy!" while everyone else screamed about oncoming traffic.

At the time I learned to drive, I considered my greatest achievement was being able to hold a conversation without looking at the person I'm speaking with.

If you believe that's not a scam then boy do I have a deal for you! One bridge*, slightly used!

That's also seen in bad console ports, by the way.

I've long since overcome my motion sickness (mom's van came with multiple barf buckets), but watching the screen move like I flicked google maps and it slowly pans to a stop (especially in any kind of curved motion) tickles the part of my brain that says "stop that, it's trying to make you sick".

Only if the master process quit after forking twice. This is not typical

No, this IS typical. The double fork allows the original process to interact with the user ("Enter your private key password:"), then exit and return 0 to the init script so init can print [ OK ] on your console.

The middle process needs to close file descriptors and do other cleanup then fork and die, causing the final process to become re-parented to init. Init then becomes responsible for cleaning it up if it dies, so it won't become a zombie.

Step-by-step "how to daemon" guide here.

This is apparently my president's nightmare because he will call me at midnight and ask me when our domains and SSL certs expire.

OpenSSL's RNG is used in many places separately from the SSL communication protocol itself, sometimes just for encryption in general (S/MIME) or sometimes someone just wants really random bytes.

Many servers fork twice in order to reparent to init, repeated forking is a common idiom in unixland.

Apache with MPM-prefork forks a bunch of children from a master process, which is typically itself a descendant of apachectl. In apache's case, this shouldn't be a problem since the "master-process-rng" would have recognized the fork and reinitialized on the first openssl connection, so the children are protected because they cannot have the same PID as the master-process.

Where it would be a problem would be an application or daemon that starts up, initializes the RNG, forks twice, then without this fork touching the RNG, starts forking children to do something random (say, encrypting one file per process or establishing a single SSL connection per process or something). Without having the RNG reset by the master process, one in 65534 or so processes will have the exact same RNG, because it will have inherited the original RNG untouched and be assigned the PID that created the RNG.

with fewer regulations for everyone

Ahahaha whoa there now, slow down sonny. Those regulations are there for a reason, mostly to keep people from competing against me and to make sure that nobody smokes anything I wouldn't openly admit to smoking. Let's back up to that low taxes thing.

While i see the "point" in this Bot, the fact is a lot of the editing is probably bored staffers and interns editing things they find interesting.

uh http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/483/894/463.jpg