Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Spare Change (Score 4, Insightful) 219

100 percent. Been there, done that.

There are four basic types of "homeless" -

1. The mentally ill.
2. Drug users and alcoholics that don't want to "get off the street" enough to do something about their habits.
3. Homeless people who lived too close to the edge and became unemployed, drug addicts and alcoholics who want to change their lives.

And here is Seattle - "Nicklesville" ...

4. People who feel that society should support their homeless lifestyle.

There are in fact many services for all of these groups except Number Four. The rest, if they work hard, give up the heavy booze and drugs (there are in fact programs), they can lift themselves out of homelessness.

And don't fool yourself, Number Four exists in great numbers, dragging the "real" homeless down to their level.

Comment: Re:Of 1000? (Score 1) 393

by aardvarkjoe (#46772345) Attached to: Survey: 56 Percent of US Developers Expect To Become Millionaires

Even if just 56% of them become rich that's good enough a chance for me.

The thing is that being a millionaire really isn't the same as being rich.

Think about it -- if you were of retirement age today, how much would you want in assets to feel comfortable retiring? A quarter million? A half million?

Now consider the amount of time that you actually have left until then. Depending on how long it will be, a half million dollars today will very likely be equivalent to over a million when you will need it.

I would venture to say that most people who are relatively early in their careers, and expect to be able to put away the money they'll need for retirement, should expect to be worth at least a million dollars at some point in their lives -- and that won't be being rich; that's just going to be "comfortable."

Comment: Re:The problem is that too much of it is state bas (Score 1) 135

by the gnat (#46770379) Attached to: U.S. Biomedical Research 'Unsustainable' Prominent Researchers Warn

This is the thing. Its like the abortion debate. MY body.

Again, you're not understanding my point. I'm not arguing with patient choice, I'm against companies marketing snake oil, which is one of the specific reasons that the FDA exists. The difference between these drugs and most other phony cures is that the drugs can actually kill you. I feel the same way about tobacco - I think people should be allowed to do anything they want as long as they don't harm anyone else, but I'm totally in favor of bans on cigarette ads. The distinction is between allowing potentially unsafe behavior, versus encouraging it.

Comment: Mod parent up. (Score 1) 1282

by khasim (#46770271) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

If you want to see it on a small scale, well ask yourself why the US has been unable to secure Afghanistan or Iraq. They had considerably more forces than your silly "1 aircraft carrier" scenario, it was hardly the whole population fighting, yet after years and years, they have been unable to secure the countries.

Mod parent up.

Anyone who thinks that modern, asymmetrical warfare means trading blows with similar weapon systems hasn't been paying attention to the last DECADE PLUS of our history.

There isn't a Taliban air force yet the Taliban is still around despite our air force bombing them for years.

Comment: Re:Procedural Rules? (Score 2) 116

by StevenMaurer (#46770239) Attached to: Lavabit Loses Contempt Appeal

Before they can get a lawyer to represent them? This wasn't an arrest. It was a subpoena.There was plenty of time to lawyer-up.

Seriously guy, all you're doing is making stuff up.

Oh, and while we're on the topic, this is not "warrantless wiretapping". It was a narrowly tailored subpoena issued because the Federal prosecutors convinced the court that there was reasonable cause to believe a crime was committed. This is exactly the way the system is supposed to work. And if you think that people who commit fraud, engage in money laundering, and a host of other schemes that hurt people, should all have an absolute right to keep their crimes secret, well sorry - you live in a first world country.

Comment: Re:recording laws (Score 1) 723

Surely not. If the recording was illegal then it was evidence of a crime and deleting it was illegal.

If the recording was not illegal then there was no crime and no need to delete it.

At no point was deleting it the correct action. The police broke the law. They should be prosecuted for it.

Comment: Re:Ukraine's borders were changed by use of force (Score 1) 279

by aardvarkjoe (#46762479) Attached to: Is Crimea In Russia? Internet Companies Have Different Answers

Wait -- you originally said that "I see no reason that people should be trapped in a country they don't want to be a part of." Indicating that you think that having the people move to a country that they want to be a part of is not acceptable. But for some reason, you don't believe that the "losers" of this referendum are "trapped" in the same way. That seems rather contradictory.

Comment: Re:The problem is that too much of it is state bas (Score 1) 135

by the gnat (#46759503) Attached to: U.S. Biomedical Research 'Unsustainable' Prominent Researchers Warn

I am a HUGE believer in individual choice. If the consumer chooses to buy or use something that isn't government approved... that is their choice. Obviously make it clear to them so they don't do it by accident... but that's about it.

I don't disagree with this, but a key issue is marketing and insurance coverage, not availability. Drugs that are legally available to consumers can't be marketed for purposes other than the conditions they were approved to treat, and companies have paid billions of dollars in fines for violating these rules. That doesn't prevent doctors from prescribing the drugs off-label, but insurance companies usually won't cover this (I know, I've tried), and because these uses can't be marketed, the revenues are vastly lower. I am 100% in favor of experimentation and consumer choice, but I don't like seeing companies push drugs with potentially debilitating side effects on people without actual evidence that they work.

Comment: Re:Okay, Go! (Score 3, Interesting) 282

by chill (#46758181) Attached to: OpenBSD Team Cleaning Up OpenSSL

Not necessarily. It looks like they're removing what they can't support, such as VMS, Netware and OS/2. The few people that care can still use the original OpenSSL code.

I'd expect them to ensure it support the hardware platforms OpenBSD supports at the very least. Then, if they go the "portable" route like they did for OpenSSH, support for the other Unix and Unix-like systems.

More power to them.

Comment: Ted Unangst's article (Score 4, Informative) 282

by grub (#46758065) Attached to: OpenBSD Team Cleaning Up OpenSSL

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.

nohup rm -fr /&