4 ms·
Regarding the Debian OpenSSL disaster, the question was brought up on the OpenSSL mailing list (and read there); regarding the Tarsnap bug, it is not an unbrace
by claudius 13y ago
Regarding the Debian OpenSSL disaster, the question was brought up on the OpenSSL mailing list (and read there); regarding the Tarsnap bug, it is not an unbraced if but a non-incremented nonce. If two of the five comments in an article are obviously wrong, how much trust should I possibly put into the remaining 60%?
- tokenrove 13y agoIt's sarcasm. You've missed the rhetorical point of the article. (To be more clear, each comment mimics the comments made about the "goto fail" bug, and the crucial point is not pure mockery or a defence of Apple, but rather the final paragraph.)
- thezilch 13y agoThe point is that because there are always mistakes in everything, that the NSA is never involved? Strange, because I'm sure they've been implicated more than zero times. NOTE: I have no opinion on their involvement in the goto fail;
- adamnemecek 13y ago> The point is that because there are always mistakes in everything, that the NSA is never involved? I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic.
- mpyne 13y agoThe logical negation of "there are rarely these easy mistakes in something, so the NSA must always be involved", is not "because there are always mistakes in everything, that the NSA is never involved".
- TwoBit 13y agoProbably a lot of people missed this point of the article. It certainly seemed odd to me.
- claudius 13y agoOh. Okay. Sorry.
- chengiz 13y agoIf there is sarcasm or rhetorical point to the article, it is not made clear at all. This is just poor writing.
- PhantomGremlin 13y agoI agree with you, poor writing. You were being voted down earlier, but not any more. So there are others who agree with you.