Fair enough. I can respect that.

And only if a significant number of sophisticated and knowledgeable eyes have the time and interest to dig through lines and lines of code looking for vulnerabilities.

The reality is that the majority of eyeballs looking at code are the ones that have other reasons to be looking at it. They aren't necessarily looking for vulnerabilities but maybe they spot something.

The eyes that might be interested in scouring code looking for vulnerabilities could be the ones wanting to exploit them rather than fix them.

heh and I see it was linked to in TFA. Sorry.

Ted Unangst wrote a good article called "analysis of openssl freelist reuse"

His analysis:

This bug would have been utterly trivial to detect when introduced had the OpenSSL developers bothered testing with a normal malloc (not even a security focused malloc, just one that frees memory every now and again). Instead, it lay dormant for years until I went looking for a way to disable their Heartbleed accelerating custom allocator.

it's a very good read.

Fuck Netflix too. We know that telco's are evil. You've just given them a big win, and a taste for blood.

Thanks for nothing, Netflix. You broke the Internet. We won't forget this.

Note: Over time as innovation in both smartphone/tablet hardware and software slows, and businesses come to rely on software that may not work with the latest IOS/Android update, there may be increasingly stronger calls for Apple and others to offer patches to older versions of their table/phone OSes rather than forcing users to upgrade.

With a different purpose and traditionally a different market than desktop computers.

Some of this has changed and will continue to change over time, but your typical IOS device is purchased by an individual rather than a business and replaced a couple of year later. While home users still purchase PCs they do it far less often than they used to. Businesses purchase far more than home users.

Further IOS updates are free and typically upgrading is simple and uneventful (typically). Most software is still compatible and those titles that aren't are usually updated quickly as well. New versions cost little or nothing.

So on the IOS side you typically have newer hardware and ease of updates. Plus most users are chomping at the bit to upgrade. There are exceptions. On the PC side it's different. Lost of home users have older hardware that may not support the update. Or they're worried the update will break something. Or they don't want to pay for it.

Businesses may have custom software that simply won't run under the new OS and would be expensive to rewrite. Large businesses tend to be slow to roll updates out to their employees even if they want to.

I'm not offended by your position at all nor do I see you or really anyone else as "the enemy".

I am curious though. You don't seem to be convinced that global warming is occurring yet you are insulted that I implied that you're taking no action. So what actions are you taking in that regard and why are you doing so?

And if you're not parroting a narrative and don't trust climate scientists, nor climate change skeptics, why would you claim that the climate has been cooling for 15 years? It would seem to me that if you truly doubt both sides, you could come to no conclusion at all about whether the climate has been cooling or warming.

I cannot seem to find which direction it is? North? East? West? South? I hope to see it from east of L.A. with its light pollutions. :(

You claim to to believe neither side, yet you repeat the (false) claims of the climate change skeptics. You basically admit you're choosing to ignore anyone who could reasonably claim to be an authority of the subject on the basis that they've likely been corrupted by grant money and because of contradictions you and others have exaggerated.

Maybe we should just stop all research that requires money. Surely nothing accurate can come from it.

I agree that not taking a stand either way is pretty convenient. You can disassociate yourself from the worst of the skeptics and chicken littles while at the same time not taking any action.

Has it occurred to you that that is maybe the plan of some of these folks? Create just enough doubt to keep any real change from occurring? Who are the ones really fighting against the idea of AGW? Aren't they the ones living the aristocratic lifestyles?

If your opinions are based on "real science" rather than whatever happens to fit your world view, then how is it you could so easily come to a conclusion about my age that is so completely wrong.

Trust me. By the mid 70's I was much more than a "gleam" and I remember the ice age predictions. Perhaps you should go back and see what was being written in SCIENTIFIC publications and the National Academy of Sciences about climate at the time rather than was was being condensed into Time and Newsweek. I have. You might be surprised.

Regardless. The point of my original post is that people like you have made up your mind and it doesn't matter what the science really says. You're going to choose to believe whatever it is you wish. On the bright side, I'm apparently a much younger person in your world.

I'm afraid I'm doing what I told myself I wouldn't, -wasting my time arguing with closed minds.

"you can walk around outdoors without electric lights even when there's no moon."

I doubt that you can do that comfortably if there are trees blocking the little star light that's available or if it's a bad road surface combined with you not wearing rugged boots.

Apart from that, especially women don't feel comfortable going around in dark places where they perceive that there can be rapists hiding in the dark.

Yeah after all nuclear bombs can help reduce world-wide daily power consumption for centuries.

But most people don't want that nuclear option right? ;)

Dedupes client side.

Oh Yes. I know, - since 1998. Like I said above, - that's a popular myth among climate changes skeptics but a myth nonetheless.

Ask yourself this question: What would it take for you to believe in AGW?

No. Really. What would it take? Is it even possible? Does it even matter what the science says as long as you can find a few credible sounding people that disagree?

My guess it doesn't matter how much consensus there is amongst the scientists who study these things. You've closed your mind.