Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Possibly Worse Than That (Score 1) 165

by BronsCon (#46783739) Attached to: Click Like? You May Have Given Up the Right To Sue
Can I sue them over the fact that I can no longer enjoy their products, thereby reducing my quality of life? The reason, of course, being one of liability; I can not and will not take on liability for their actions and any possible disastrous consequences of failures of their quality control processes or side effects caused by their current or future products, which is precisely the choice they're giving me: "Forgo being our customer, or take liability for our actions."

Comment: Re:It doesn't. (Score 1) 569

by BronsCon (#46763179) Attached to: How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?
Absolutely! This isn't something that could have been foreseen, but I've been noticing more of a tendency toward "well, I can't stop everything, so why bother" lately, and I'm beyond not sure I like it; I'm sure I don't. You seem to get this, thank you for giving me hope for humanity. :)

Comment: Re:It doesn't. (Score 1) 569

by BronsCon (#46762971) Attached to: How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?
Or, you know, fuzz the hell out of it until you find something, like I said in my post. No source necessary. At least with open source, I can fuzz it until I find a vulnerability, then find the code that caused the vulnerability and fix it.

I mean, I suppose if I got my hands on the source for IE, I could fix that, as well, but why go through the trouble when I can readily obtain the source for a number of other browsers?

Comment: Re:It doesn't. (Score 1) 569

by BronsCon (#46762107) Attached to: How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?
Reading comprehension? You just agreed with me... I ended my comment by pointing out that fuzzing is super-effective. You can ignore the source and just fuzz away with open source, just like you're forced to do with closed. And, as a user, you can fix vulnerabilities in open source software, rather than having to wait for the developer to do so. In fact, as a user, you can fuzz *and* fix your open source application.

That is to say, having the source doesn't make finding vulns easier (or harder, as you imply), it does, however, make fixing them easier.

Comment: It doesn't. (Score 4, Insightful) 569

by BronsCon (#46761181) Attached to: How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?
It's 6 of one, half-dozen of the other.

Anyone can view the source of an open source project, which means anyone can find vulnerabilities in it. Specifically, hackers wishing to exploit the software, as well as users withing to audit and fix the software. But, someone who knows what they're doing has to actually look at the source for that to matter; and this rarely happens.

Hackers must black-box closed source software to find exploits, which make it more difficult than finding them in open source software; the flip-side is that they can only by fixed by the few people who have the source. If the hacker doesn't disclose the exploit and the people with access to the code don't look for it, it goes unpatched forever.

Open source software does provide an advantage to both sides, hackers can find exploits more easily and users can fix them more easily; with closed source, you're at the mercy of the vendor to fix their code but, at the same time, it's more difficult for a hacker to find a vulnerability without access to the source.

Then, we consider how good fuzzing techniques have gotten and... well, as it becomes easier to find vulnerabilities in closed source software, open source starts to look better.

Comment: Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score 1) 328

by BronsCon (#46689593) Attached to: Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites
You do realize you failed to disagree with me at all, right? I can distribute something without selling or licensing it; it's called putting up my own website.

Okay, you did disagree with me regarding the model's level of involvement in the sale or licensing of the photo. And you're wrong; as a photographer, I hold a fair hand of cards cards. The model can decide who I *can* not sell or license to, and I can decide who I *will* not; if the model had all they say, I'd have to sell or license the photo to whomever the model dictated and that is, simply, not the case.

Comment: Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score 1) 328

by BronsCon (#46680349) Attached to: Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites
Okay and now I *am* going to natter on. Since you can't see how your approach failed, let me point it out. This is an effective response when someone admits they were wrong and this is an appropriate way to present an opposing viewpoint, what you wrote was neither of those things.

While you did "[invite me] to consider whether [my] position would change if [I] knew one of those victims"; you also, immediately before that, managed to insinuate that I didn't give this any thought, rather than accepting the possibility that I was working off of incorrect or incomplete information, as was the case, and took the liberty of making another bold assumption about me; I'll leave it to you to figure out what that assumption was and why you were wrong to do so.

Stating that you disagree with me and providing your opinion, as you did in the first paragraph of your initial reply to me, was spot-on. Everything you've wrote after that was inflammatory, and I think you know that. Stopping at the end of your first paragraph would have garnered a more positive response; simply, me stating that I had actually been presented additional information and an alternative viewpoint on the subject, and had already reconsidered my position. I would have had nothing to call out out on and, therefore, would not have done so.

Comment: Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score 1) 328

by BronsCon (#46680273) Attached to: Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites
At least one of us can admit they were wrong. Who's the one nattering on and behaving dickishly? Seriously, rather than politely suggest I reconsider my position, taking into consideration that I may have been coming from a position of ignorance, rather than malice, you chose to take a stab at me, and you're attempting to do so.

I've admitted everything you're trying to point out about how I was wrong in my postings on this topic. I've learned, I've grown, and I'm man enough to admit I was wrong. That's more than you can say.

Go ahead, have the last word. You know you want it. But if you choose to take another stab at me, don't expect me to let it stand.

Comment: Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score 1) 328

by BronsCon (#46674591) Attached to: Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites
Other comments I've posted on this topic have received much less confrontational replies, attacking my position, rather than myself personally, or the replying poster's perceived notion of how much though I've given the topic. It's probably good that I read those replies several hours before yours, as they managed to expand my view of the issue (and at least one of those received a response indicating such, also several hours before you posted this), whereas your approach only managed to make me not like you, personally.

Just sayin'... it doesn't matter how right you think you are, when you have to resort to attacking the other person, you're only showing that you can't find an attackable flaw in their position. Defensively, I would say that's quite sad, since I, personally, no longer hold that position, having seen several flaws in it, myself, by now.

"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.

Working...