Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Panglossian Nonsense ---What are you on? (Score 1) 582

by Capt.Albatross (#46779199) Attached to: How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?

Have you heard of an old cliche that goes "learn from your mistakes". By your logic, no errors can ever be made and learned from.

What we have here is a failure to learn from previous mistakes - this bug violates a number of basic principles in the development of secure software, and most of those principles were derived from hard experience.

I will agree that there is one thing to be learned here: The phrase "with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow" is simplistic wishful thinking, and potentially dangerous if mistaken for a realistic verification policy.

Comment: Re:Not enough eyes (Score 1) 582

by Capt.Albatross (#46766521) Attached to: How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?

So, the "with many eyes all bugs are shallow" notion fails. There were not enough eyes on the OpenSSL library, which is why nobody discovered the bug.

Except that someone did discover the bug...

The 'many eyes' principle (aka Linus' Law) states "with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow". This claims a good deal more than simply that bugs are likely to be found eventually. Given the seriousness of this bug and the length of time taken to expose it, any claim that 'many eyes' worked in this case depends on a useless definition of 'worked'.

Maybe the similar errors would and are being missed in the Windows and Mac implementations.

That is quite likely, but irrelevant. This severity and duration of the OpenSSL bug are not mitigated by the hypothetical (or even real) failings of closed-source vendors.

The open source community should move beyond this self-serving aphorism and adopt a more engineering-like approach to the correctness of critical software. Fortunately, I think the people actually doing the development are well aware of this.

Comment: Panglossian Nonsense (Score 1) 582

by Capt.Albatross (#46765901) Attached to: How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?

...Chalk it up to valuable experience...

According to this sort of argument, nothing bad ever happens. The Air France 447 crash will improve pilot training, the Boston Marathon bombing will improve race security...

This point of view gives us no insight in to how to improve things. It belongs in the 'not even wrong' category.

Comment: Re:Evolution (Score 1) 178

Agreed, and furthermore, even if he 'merely' spooked the runner to the point where she fell, then he was operating the drone irresponsibly.

This jerk needs to man-up and learn to take responsibility for his own actions. Until then, he shouldn't be operating a drone - or a car, for that matter.

Comment: Re:oblig xkcd (Score 1) 105

by Capt.Albatross (#46683369) Attached to: Sand in the Brain: A Fundamental Theory To Model the Mind

That is what I thought of too, but in this case neuroscientists agree with him...

There's a huge difference between identifying a principe behind some low-level aspect of neural activity, and explaining how the brain works. This sort of article (and other pronouncements of Dr. Bak, apparently) gives reductionism a bad name. Only if he could show how consciousness arises directly from neural self-organized criticality would the absurd hyperbole of the first paragraph be justified.

Comment: Re:Outed? (Score 1) 193

Which could easily be the same thing.

'Outing' has a connotation of a) the public identification of an individual, b) the disclosure of private information about that individual, and c) being against the (not necessarily explicitly stated) wishes of the individual. Neither a) nor b) occurred, which also means c) is moot.

Comment: Re:How did this go to trial? (Score 2) 236

by Capt.Albatross (#46426841) Attached to: Drone Pilot Wins Case Against FAA

Why do you say "whined"? It sounds like several people probably had valid cause for complain. I certainly don't want random assholes buzzing me with their drones or RC aircraft, or getting in the way of manned aircraft.

Exactly. If he was operating as alleged, he has made things more difficult for responsible operators, because this will expedite regulation.

Comment: Re:If you don't like it.... (Score 1) 431

by Capt.Albatross (#46422245) Attached to: Jewish School Removes Evolution Questions From Exams

The issue here is evolution. Any version of creationism that denies evolution is incompatible with science.

It's not really incompatible... I imagine they have different beliefs about how the solar system formed, spanning from the YECs belief that a god placed the planets where they are today, th[r]ough the people that think a god just kicked off the Big Bang and nudged a few cosmological constants around...

My comment was two simple sentences, yet you managed to miss the point. It takes no position on people who accept the facts of evolution.

I suppose I have to point out that accepting the facts of evolution means all of those facts, not some bowdlerized version that denies the random aspects of evolution, or claims that evolution is responsible for small changes only, or excludes the descent of Man.

And I guess I also have to point out that my statement does not imply that a version of creationism that accepts the facts of evolution is necessarily compatible with science. It could be incompatible in other ways, which is highly likely when you introduce hypotheses lacking any evidence in support. As I wrote in the first third of my original response, the issue here is evolution, specifically.

With regard to your last paragraph, the route by which someone arrived at a belief is immaterial to the question of whether that belief is consistent with science.

           

Comment: Szabo? (Score 2) 390

by Capt.Albatross (#46419453) Attached to: Bitcoin Inventor Satoshi Nakamoto Outed By Newsweek

I thought the evidence previously presented, that Nicholas Szabo was Satoshi, was plausible, albeit circumstantial. I suspect that this Satoshi Nakamato's involvement with Bitcoin was not as the primary innovator or leader, while the the person(s) who did play those roles prefer for Newsweek (and the rest of the world) to think otherwise.
     

1: No code table for op: ++post

Working...