And now apparently instead of at least having a sandbox to make changes in, they just dump their untested code into the main Slashdot page.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Head transplants has been tried before. In 1970, Robert White led a team at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, US, that tried to transplant the head of one monkey on to the body of another. The surgeons stopped short of a full spinal cord transfer, so the monkey could not move its body. Despite Canavero's enthusiasm, many surgeons and neuroscientists believe massive technical hurdles push full body transplants into the distant future. The starkest problem is that no one knows how to reconnect spinal nerves and make them work again. "This is such an overwhelming project, the possibility of it happening is very unlikely," says Harry Goldsmith."
I was a manager and never missed a deadline. It really isn't that hard. Most people fail because they do it the wrong way. First give no estimates until you have developed a good picture of the global architecture and have some bare bones functionality running. This takes about 1-3 months of your team, but well worth the effort. Then keep an eye from the very beginning on who's falling behind, and move resources around to support the people who ended up with more than their fair share. Assign a medium size portion of the project to your senior developer(s) so that they are available near the end to go and help in those areas that turned out to be gorier than predicted. You cannot bring people from outside since it takes them too long to ramp up as obseved by Fred Brooks. This is why you use your senior people: they know the whole system and can jump in in any part***. Stand firm in your refusal to add features and lastly, near the end, drop any minor feature which gets postponed to version X.1.
Most costumers are happier with a version in time with 95% of the features than a complete version three months late.
Also be realistic with what means to be in time. If you take three years to develop a system and you are five days late, you were off by 0.5%. Any one who tells you in this case that you were late is just mathematically innumerate. I was never more than a week late, but I'd dare say that even an error of 5% (which for a three year project is seven weeks) should not be considered late. Forecasting is an imprecise science afterall.
Oh and one last thing, there is one estimate you tell the team and there is another one in your head. So the goal is "we run as hard as we can to finish by May 10th, so that when sh*t happens (which always does) we make the real June 1st deadline (which you always keep secret so programmers don't budget for it.... you know, work expands to fill allotted time).
*** Stu Feldman, a Unix principal was used this way, according to Ritchie. Stu didn't fully own a single component of Unix but his code is everywhere, doing central things that had fallen behind and were passed on to him.
1c coin exists because there is a zinc lobby though they have agreed to a compromise which is a problem for the vending machine lobby. There is fundamentally no good reason economically and even politically this would be fixable given a less destructive congress.
The zinc lobby is a large part of the reason why the government won't make the change, but not the only one. The last time I discussed it with anyone, I was amazed at the number of seemingly rational people who were convinced that any attempt to get rid of the penny was a conspiracy to drive up prices.
Change of any sort frightens people, even over the stupidest of things.
True, you didn't built everything from source, but you were happy enough that everything traced back to "the" sources to make you feel secure. That's a lot more protection than anything from a commercial vendor, who probably just sold you formulaic encryption without any extra work to make you feel secure. Your data would have been more secure, if not actually secure, but you'd have felt it less, because really you have no way of knowing. So without somebody taking the extra time to make you feel secure, you naturally wouldn't feel it very much, if at all.
The problem is that there is no conceivable way to do what you are saying. It involves compromising or proxying disparate traffic, expertly.
And then, after all that, it would involve rooting an otherwise secure installation that is barely network connected, and using that to inject what, defects into the right sources so that the resulting binaries are weak or exploitable?
I agree that the NSA, CIA, and FBI have extraordinary capabilities, but the attack vectors that have thus far been revealed are the same attack vectors that security researchers have known and published for a long time - firmware, obscure libraries that are often used but seldom examined, zero-day exploits of popular software, mathematical flaws in encryption implementations, and physical security and chain of custody.
All of which is to say, the basic landscape of the threat has not changed much in 20 years. It is sophisticated, but as always, a strong layered defense and strong procedures and policies will minimize the possible impacts, exploits, and severity of breaches (if they occur in the first place). There are few things more secure than a well maintained GNU/Linux or OpenBSD box running in the wild.