Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:This is awesome (Score 3, Insightful) 217

by js3 (#47172239) Attached to: New OpenSSL Man-in-the-Middle Flaw Affects All Clients

The more of these we find, the more secure OpenSSL will be. I hope we continue to find these kinds of problems and see them fixed. If open source has one strength, it's that when many skilled eyes DO converge on the code it can be tested and fixed far more quickly than a corporation with limited resources and only paid developers can do the same sort of debugging work. The trick is getting the eyes there in the first place.

10 years ago someone said...

"Opensource will eliminate all bugs, because the world can see the source". Doesn't matter if no one reads the source.

Comment: Re:Closed source software (Score 0) 217

by js3 (#47172223) Attached to: New OpenSSL Man-in-the-Middle Flaw Affects All Clients

Given all the open-source SSL/TLS security flaws (OpenSSL, gnutls, Apple SSL) that have come out these past few months - mostly thanks to renewed interest in hunting flaws, thanks to the Snowden revelations, I suspect - I hope that companies like Microsoft are also seeing this as a wake-up call driving them to do code reviews on their closed-source SSL/TLS code.

Not quite sure what you mean there. Closed source gets more code review than opensource apparently.

Comment: Re:I can tell this article is worthless from the s (Score 2) 333

by js3 (#46939737) Attached to: NASA, France Skeptical of SpaceX Reusable Rocket Project

NASA, France Skeptical of SpaceX Reusable Rocket Project

Yes, that's a lovely headline. But the original headline ("NASA, CNES Warn SpaceX of Challenges in Flying Reusable Falcon 9 Rocket") tells the same story with 42% less bullshit.

NASA found that it was not worth trying to reuse the space shuttle main engines after every flight without extensive refurbishment.

Really? So because the space shuttle couldn't do it, nobody could do it, perhaps by learning lessons from the shuttle program? If this is an example of the kind of thinking in the article, it's a fat waste of time. If it isn't an example, why mention it at all?

I went ahead and skimmed the article, and indeed, the sole counterexample to the potential of reuse continues to be the space shuttle. The article is crap. Flush.

Ugh, why can't people comprehend mildly complex topics? You contradict yourself in your post so much that it hurts.

NASA "warns", does not mean NASA "says it is impossible".

NASA "warns" implies it IS possible but there are other challenges to overcome.

Basic comprehension people.

If Machiavelli were a hacker, he'd have worked for the CSSG. -- Phil Lapsley