I would suggest that in most printers that use it the printer starts a new Ghostscript process for each print job. That would limit potential damage to, say, an embedded EPS, which is a format I'm practically dating myself by mentioning its existence.

Unless Ghostscript is being run as root I suspect pretty much any vulnerability is in practice useless.

You're kidding us right?

How does being forced to drive everywhere increase the amount of time available vs living in a walkable city?

In practice, doing the stuff you do in a real walkable city would take so long that you can't do it in a suburban car-only place. Really! I used to walk by dozens of speciality stores just going to the supermarket when I lived in Britain. Do you think you could just drop into even four random stores on your shopping day if they're not at the mall if you drive? You'll be driving to every single one, parking, going in, going out, then driving to the next. It takes fucking ages. So people don't do it. So there's no choice. So if Aldi or Publix or Walmart doesn't have it, you're basically out of luck. The best you have is the mall, and the mall is basically expensive and limited largely to clothing and jewelry, coupled with the kinds of stores that would be in the center of a real city anyway.

What bothers me though is that you don't care about whether you're right or not. You keep repeating this ridiculous garbage pretending that mandatory car usage is somehow "convenient" and fast when people actually describe real cities to you, and you can go and even look them up on Google Maps, and see they're truly laid out the way we describe. You don't explain how driving to 10 shops in a day is even possible, when you know this is normal behavior for people in walkable cities.

So instead you pretend it can't be normal behavior in walkable cities. You can easily prove it is. But you pretend it isn't.

At some point you've got to accept that your carosexual obsession isn't simply unhealthy, it's deranged. You've made massive assumptions about the lifestyles of others and a weird belief that everyone thinks like you, even though you know that most people in the world don't even live like you, and you know you can't agree with your neighbors on almost anything. You insist those lifestyles are unnatural and should be banned with the ferocity of a homophobe talking about gay people.

You're fucking weird man. And so are your fellow carosexuals.

> I remember that cinema! It basically had the ticket office on the street, right?

Just looked it up on Wikipedia, and yes, still exists apparently. It was the Penultimate Picture Palace when I was there. The box office is on the outside of the building (I think that's what you meant? Not technically on the pavement, still part of the building, but you can walk up to it from the street without entering the building)

(As an aside just saw Bill Heine, who funded it, is dead. Famous for the shark in his roof. I knew some people in "progressive" groups back then who were less than keen on him, but he did seem to at least use his wealth to try to push things in the right direction.)

> It's a boon to so much more too. Having mixed use means that there's room for people for whom a single family home with a "yard" isn't a good fit. Single people. Young couples without a family. Old people who want less space to manage, etc etc. You don't have to segregate people by demographic and people don't have to move away from their friends and family when their demographic changes.

It's the most obvious thing in the world, but, I mean, see the other reply, from someone convinced that his fellow Manhattanites all want to drive to a supermarket at the edge of town rather than just pick up groceries locally. (Also I think his theory is that this is how people live in the suburbs, visiting a grocery store once a fortnight. No, that's not how it works...)

(And for those thinking that people don't have yards in cities, yes, we do. My home in the early 1980s had a huge backyard comparable in size to that of my current American suburban thing. It was unusually thin and long by American standards, but it had the space. But... I don't even want one now, and I have a family.)

I genuinely don't get what there is to disbelieve about people preferring a car free lifestyle. I knew plenty of people who had cars in Britain, and I considered at one point getting one for the theoretical convenience, but never felt I needed one, and loved not feeling like I needed one. And with hindsight, I would have been 100% wrong about the convenience.

> Nobody likes car free life.

And there you have it, the carosexual refusing to believe that other people aren't also carosexuals.

Car free life is fantastic. I wish I could go back to it, but alas I moved to the states.

The lifestyle associated with being car free is such that, regardless of your attempts to pretend everyone around you secretly wants to drive in Manhattan, every single place I've known of where it's possible, the housing has ended up costing astronomical amounts of money because too many people want to live there compared to the capacity.

Hence my anecdote about the Iffly road. Beautiful four story homes that easily fit what the GGP said he wanted, but, because of a 20th Century insistence on building suburban "housing estates" at the edges of the major cities, turned into flats and shared houses to make living in Oxford affordable. Because so many people want to live there.

YOU don't like it. That's fine! Perhaps though it's time you moved out of New York City and stopped driving up the cost of housing there. You don't have to live there, you just choose to live in a place where you can walk to the grocery store when you need groceries, when by your own admission you'd rather drive to a far away one.

> Well, no.

Mostly because car free life is popular, FWIW.

I'm reminded of the Iffly Road in Oxford which comprises mostly four story terraced homes that even by the 1980s had mostly be converted into flats or shared homes because demand for housing was so high. These were easily 2,500sqft though as individual homes, and were within walking distance of almost everything. You probably wanted a bus to get to Oxford City Center, but even if you walked it wasn't more than 40-50 minutes walk. The nearby Cowley Road (5 minutes walk) was mostly shops, with restaurants and pubs, a community center, even an (old, so by that point art house) cinema. Carosexuals can take a look at Google Maps and use streetview if you find this so impossible to believe. But the reality is while I didn't live on Iffly road as a kid, I did at one point live in the area and had a supermarket with a bakery, pub, newsagent, corner store, and even a fishmonger within five minutes walk, and my school was 15 minutes. And even moving later to the other side of town, my experience was similar albeit the nearest supermarket was a little further.

This is all possible. It is economic to build like this. It MASSIVELY reduces the cost of living. It is a boon to small businesses (without damaging those large corporations carosexuals always love.) It just needs carosexuals to tolerate its existence and to stop trying to ban living like this.

You guys (not you Serviscope!) won't though because you both can't imagine people wanting to live affordably in nice homes with nice parks, schools, and businesses nearby, and because you somehow consider people living like this to be wrong and somehow a threat to you.

Fucking carosexuals ruin everything.

So basically they had Claude grep for "memcpy" and "strcpy", and then had humans actually review to see if those two functions were being called unsafely.

I'm only being partially sarcastic here. Having seen the slop examples that Daniel Stenberg (curl dev) has posted repeatedly, we won't know if Claude has done anything useful unless we at least see how much chaff was separated from the wheat by human review. If those 500 "high security" vulnerabilities (in Ghostscript? We're using Ghostscript in high security situations now? Are printer makers running it as root or something?) were whittled down from 100,000 initial reports, has Claude done anything useful that a basic human review wouldn't have achieved?

I also find it interesting they picked the low hanging fruit for this. This wasn't a list of software that undergoes security reviews that often. So I'd expect more buffer overflow type issues simply because there's no urgent call for those kinds of bugs to be fixed.

I'm... skeptical here. I think they intentionally chose software they knew wasn't already under audit to increase the numbers, and I think the fact important stats were left out of the press release, like how many non-issues Claude found, makes it likely an exceedingly high volume of Claude's initial results were slop.

You'll find the "Low taxes, vague views about what government should do which mostly revolve around violence against other people" thing is a popular thing in the US among that subset that also consistently votes for right wing parties. Now, I know what you're about to say, "It's because they're secretly fascists", but it's more complex than that. You see, fascists and the kinds of people who think social programs aren't valuable and that healthcare can be done by the free market, and so on, have one major mentality in common which makes the right wing able to capitalize on it: they're both really, really, stupid.

To be fair, babies don't really drive a lot of motorcycles.

Bitcoin advocates used to claim that the reason Bitcoin was shooting up in value wasn't that it was a made up currency subject to massive swings in value, but because the dollar was undergoing massive inflation and Bitcoin was the one actually holding its value.

They claimed this when USD inflation was actually around the usual 2-3% it normally is.

And for the last few years we've seen inflation bordering hyperinflation for the USD. But somehow... Bitcoin has lost value, not gained it.

So, Bitcoin advocates, are you claiming there's been deflation under Trump, that the dollar has actually increased in value? Or will you maybe admit this time that Bitcoin is, actually, a terrible thing to use as a currency because it has ludicrously large swings in value all the time that have no real world basis?

Computer prices have varied a lot in the past 40 years, and especially if you take into account inflation, they've been at the cheap, commodity priced, position for a while now. There have been plenty of times it cost $2,000+ for what was considered, if not an entry level PC, a "good but not premium" PC. That is, the type of thing your office would equip you with.

What I'm trying to say I guess is that, alas, no, developers aren't going to stop producing bloated stuff that imports hundreds of unverified third party libraries any time soon because the people who make the decisions will continue to pay for premium PCs. The age of the $300 entry level PC that people use for web browsing may be at an end, but businesses will continue to spend money on PCs that run the "latest software" regardless of whether that software was well written.

Not everyone has moved to Wayland, no.

Three movies mention AI as part of the plot and this means Hollywood has an AI boner right now? Have you watched Hollywood in the last... well, since it started? I mean, some of Slashdot's favorite movies are all about AI and none of them were made this year - The Terminator series, The Matrix, even Age of Ultron.

The reason these movies tanked are various but:

- Tron has never done well. We all want it to, but it's not going to happen. Additionally Aries had That Guy in it, and Aries also broke the formula by having it be set primarily in the real world. It just wasn't a good entry in a series that isn't very popular to begin with.
- Mission Impossible is getting long in the tooth. It's arguably the only one of the three that could have done well, but the marketing did nothing to raise excitement for the movie. Also, no idea what the reviews were like, but I wouldn't recommend it, it seemed more contrived than usual.
- The Megan "series" flopped because it was supposed to be an entertaining one off, and virtually everyone looking at it said "Why the hell does it have a sequel".

I don't see any evidence Hollywood is doing an AI bet, they just released three movies that happened to be about AI in some form and happened to flop.

> Besides, the last fucking government entity I would trust to deliver facts, is the CIA. In any decade, under any President. Ever.

If you actually ever bothered to access the thing, you'd see it was about stats like population figures. There was no reason whatsoever to assume they'd lie about any of the information they were posting. The CIA's primary audience for it were decision makers in the US, from the US government itself to larger businesses, organizations the CIA had no interest in misleading.

You can be a paranoid fuck who bleats constantly about the Kennedy assassination and who tries to use MK ULTRA as proof the moon landings couldn't have happened, while simultaneously using the CIA WF as a source of information. It was a good thing.

The Internet didn't destroy X.25, X.25 just didn't take off. Had the Internet not happened X.25 would still not have taken off. Universities, sure, experimented with it, and probably a business or two, but a metered, high latency, data network is just plain dumb on every level.

> Make a law that broadcast and online media have to represent all candidates equally and give them free airtime for some agreed length of time and have government moneyt pay for a certain number of campaign visits around your country which if they lose they have to pay back.

No.

If you want a British like system where *broadcast* TV is required to allow each party to show a 10 minute ad for themselves before the election, then sure. But both-sideisms is what has gotten us to a national crisis. Truth should always be the core driver of ethical media. And an equal time rule essentially legislates truth and ethical journalism out of existence. And there is zero reason why online media should be required to be part of either free airtime nor an equal time rule.