Comment Re:This always seems bass-ackwards (Score -1) 136
Do you folks have functional brain cells? You think they're offering the severance to their best employees? You've never ran a company, have you?
Do you folks have functional brain cells? You think they're offering the severance to their best employees? You've never ran a company, have you?
Severance? Where from. They're bankrupt. No company in the world could survive releasing a product as defective and unpopular as Windows 11. The invisible hand of the market would never allow it.
Are you stupid?
Anthropic asks if it can do that. It's an Opt-in.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, asshat. PGP has NEVER been used in Linux. GNUPG has.. But that is, effectively, a PGP CLONE.
Rewriting it in something that is memory-safer is hardly a bad call. Further, you retarded, inbred, fuck:
Key Exposure and Leakage: Encryption relies on secret keys stored in memory. A memory-unsafe bug—such as a buffer overflow or out-of-bounds read—can allow an attacker to read arbitrary memory blocks, exposing private keys, initialization vectors, or plaintexts directly to unauthorized users.
Control Flow Hijacking: Bugs like use-after-free or stack/heap overflows allow attackers to overwrite function pointers or execution logic. Even if an encryption algorithm (like AES-256) is mathematically unbreakable, an attacker can hijack the program to dump data before it is encrypted or after it is decrypted.
Bypassing Authentication: Many cryptographic protocols (such as TLS or SSH) bundle encryption with integrity checks and handshakes. Memory corruption flaws can let an attacker skip verification steps, forge authentication tokens, or accept invalid certificates.
The Heartbleed Precedent: A classic real-world example is the Heartbleed bug in OpenSSL (a buffer over-read vulnerability). It did not break the underlying math of SSL/TLS, but it let attackers read server memory directly, exposing private keys and session cookies.
The "fuck you, kids are your problem and I'm not paying for them" attitude has a lot to do with the declining birth rate in some countries.
You're a fucking idiot.
And cut their work hours. If you want babies that's what you need to do.
You think people worked more or less in the past, idiot?
not people hiding in the dark to steal your purse at knife point (does that even still happen ?)
Are you really that spoiled, you fucking clown?
I'm not sure United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez aapplies like you think it does. If that were teh case, any foreign corporation without a physical/substantial presence do not have to comply with US law even if tehy offer services in the US, or foreign banks comply with US reporting laws on US citizens.
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez was about a search and seizure of a non-US citizen in a foreign country. Teh question is does offering services in the US via teh web and charging for tehm establish enough of a presence to be afforded Constitutional protection?
Corporations with no physical presence here to NOT have to comply with US law, moron. Of course, the US government has a bit more reach than most, so not complying could mean facing lockouts from the global financial systems. You think I give a rat's ass that my website isn't compliant with EU privacy laws even though an EU citizen can reach it?
On average, movie studios take about 55% to 60% of domestic ticket revenue, while theaters keep the remaining 40% to 45%. The bigger the movie is anticipated to be, or for the big franchise-films, the studio can demand up to 80% of the ticket sale. For Indie-style films, they may have to settle for 30%.
So, I guess my question is answered.. No, you idiots do not know what the split is. You'd all prefer to be conspiracy-theory assholes.
You know, the difference between this company and the Titanic is that the Titanic had paying customers.