Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not malicious but not honest? (Score 1) 445

by arse maker (#46727501) Attached to: Heartbleed Coder: Bug In OpenSSL Was an Honest Mistake

Its a fair point I guess. But there is no self regulation in the software industry. There is no standard qualifications.
The internet isn't regulated. There is no malpractice laws for code. These companies used this software as-is without warranty.

You could create laws to make people liable for the free code the provide. But they don't exist now. Im not sure how you could make it work.

We live in a new time now where the technology we use is so homogeneous, interconnected and fast that mistakes can cripple a large percent of the people on earth in a very short period of time. Even an incompetent doctor can only kill one patient at a time.

At some point laws will regulate things as important as ssl, but for now its still the wild west.

Comment: Re:Not malicious but not honest? (Score 1) 445

by arse maker (#46727201) Attached to: Heartbleed Coder: Bug In OpenSSL Was an Honest Mistake

Programming is just breaking down a real world task into smaller and smaller parts until you can write code to achieve it.
So all bugs seem trival in reflection because code is simple (single threaded anyhow :p).

To be fair though, this was part of the rfc, and is the sort of thing you write unit tests to catch. These sort of well defined algorithims are extremely unit testable. This is the way you test functionality and stop regression bugs.

Sure you could still miss it, its just most of our bugs don't cause such a huge pain in the ass for the internet.

Comment: Re:Mathematics is a language, not a science (Score 1) 595

Well, I would phrase it that, maths is internally consistent logical numeric operations.

Correct maths is always correct, does it reflect nature? Sure only experiment can tell.

This gets to the philosophy of maths, is maths "real". I think the best way I can think of it is.. if the universe worked by non internally consistant means it would not be stable, if the forces between particles didnt follow consistent logic, I cant see how they could exist. So it parallels math in having that constraint.

Comment: Re:Quantum fluctuations != nothing (Score 1) 595

Particles are excitations of fields. There are many fields that permeate the universe. Fields have a quantized state at every point, everywhere.
Due to the uncertainty principle we cannot know the precise value of say the momentum of that point in space (if we want to define no momentum as nothing). Therefore there is no "nothing". This has all come from rigorous theory confirmed by experiment.

Are these fields real? Do they exist everywhere? Does this hold outside our "universe" whatever that means, who knows, its just philosophy. All we know is what we can see by experiment.

Comment: Re:Bit coin is a lot like scientology. (Score 1) 276

by arse maker (#46428273) Attached to: Should Newsweek Have Outed Satoshi Nakamoto's Personal Details?

Depends when they cashed out. You would have to be an almost psychopath to still be holding all your bit coins at this point.

There has been so much fluctuation and uncertainty.

You also have to hope you aren't an american, because the fbi is likely to fuck you up on RICO charges once they find out who you are.

Comment: Re:I thought it was David Chaum (Score 1) 276

by arse maker (#46428253) Attached to: Should Newsweek Have Outed Satoshi Nakamoto's Personal Details?

Eh, the creator/s of bitcoin didn't create cryptography in an afternoon.

Im no expert on bitcoin but its seems to be a protocol built on known cryptography, I don't see why one person couldn't have created it.

Try reading some published scientific papers, apparently they would blow your mind.

Comment: Re:Right to be left alone (Score 1) 276

by arse maker (#46428231) Attached to: Should Newsweek Have Outed Satoshi Nakamoto's Personal Details?

There is a right to free speech. I don't remember which part of the bill of rights is to be left alone without anyone in violation of free speech.

Unless the reporter was knowingly putting him in danger with false information, nothing wrong has been done.

And as you mention.. if the person was defamed. There is legal recourse.

Comment: Re:Personal Details (Score 1) 276

by arse maker (#46428147) Attached to: Should Newsweek Have Outed Satoshi Nakamoto's Personal Details?

Its unethical if you knowingly name someone you know isn't the person. Or claim with certainty you cant back up.

Outing someone without their permission is not unethical at all.

Perhaps if outing them only hurt them without any benefit to the public, maybe you can argue its unethical.. but its a dangerous position to claim the truth is unethical.

Comment: Re:Personal Details (Score 1) 276

by arse maker (#46428069) Attached to: Should Newsweek Have Outed Satoshi Nakamoto's Personal Details?

Since whoever created bitcoin is not literally seconds from being crushed by a government tank for their actions. Its hardly a fair comparison.
If a journalist could never report on someone who didn't want to be reported on, you might as well end journalism and free speech.
Let the journalists reputation live and die by their work. If they defame someone, their are legal means to have recourse.
Any type of pre-emptive censorship is anathema to democracy and free speech.

% APL is a natural extension of assembler language programming; ...and is best for educational purposes. -- A. Perlis

Working...