thuffy

Nice job missing the point.

I absolutely agree it is a mess for other reasons as well; but let us attack it on all angles, and I think security is the most important one these days.

So let us make the user space implementation more performant instead of going down the more inherently risky path in regards to security.

Kinda good points; however: Wirth's law is more true for commercial software where profit is the motive. Amdahl's law only really makes sense in parallel computing. All that is beside the real point; which is that in this post-Snowden world, we should not be sacrificing security for performance.

Moores Law works to make it eventually more than fast enough.

Moores Law does not help it get more secure.

How about we work on things that mater in this post-Snowden world, like increasing security -- and let Moore do the performance improvements! Seems a more reasonable and efficient approach, no? Adding more attackable surface area to the Kernel is not a good idea at all. It is an NSA wet dream.

Let's talk about the elephant in the room.

This is quite obviously the NSA adding massive additional attackable surface area to the Linux kernel.

They did it to SSL/TLS, they did it to many others, they are now doing it in earnest to Linux.

First systemd, now kdbus. Keep this up and OpenBSD, or something else, is going to kill the Swiss cheese that Linux is becoming. I love Linux, so it is sad to see this happening.

Solved this without even a pencil and paper, just in my head, in under 60 seconds while being distracted by another person in the room asking me what to have for breakfast. There is only one possible answer as the others pointed out; you are definitely wrong that the answer is indeterminable.

The whole ruckus surrounding this problem seems to be more a reflection of the sad state of the intelligence in our population, rather than anything to do with Asia.

Contrast this (Chinese eugenics) with our dysgenic system of subsidizing defective genetics for the profit of the medical industry, and, well, the obvious result is that western civilization is in big trouble!

More info from this link that shiven shared below: https://edge.org/response-detail/23838

Good news then!

I'll be releasing the greater project shortly as GPL, with the SSH implementation as LGPL! I'll announce on HN for sure then.

Guido, if you want to put it in Python itself, you can have it in whatever license you need for that.

Python 3's asyncio / co-routines is the reason to write any new project in Python 3.

The API is tiny, and the result is beautiful.

If you haven't seriously tried using it to implement something that really benefits from such computer science innovation, then you have simply seen nothing of Python 3 yet. There are many types of logic that are vastly simplified with such a programming paradigm. Faster to code, and far simpler to debug. By orders of magnitude. One example you could try if you cannot envision one is to implement a high performance network protocol. I for instance implemented the SSH protocol from scratch (RFCs) in a matter of weeks. I though it would take months before I tried, especially since I had never programmed in Python before! As I said, the API is tiny. Learning it (Python and Asyncio at once) was so easy and ended up taking such an insignificant amount of time compared to the vast quantities of time and headache saved, that, well, I just had to write this post with all that extra time and energy!

Check it out! You will find that it is beyond worth just addressing whatever fears or problems you have with making the switch.

Not at all.

The court of the people have subpoenaed this corporate information. Anyone knows that the corporate veil will be pierced in discovery.

LOL, the new Godwin's Law: Edward Snowden.

(See my valid but then NSA downvoted answer to the question below regarding GO vs. Rust that no one else could answer and were forced to make jokes about -- if you are wondering what I mean.)

Sorry rust thread. :(

(now kicked off the front page)

One force having all knowledge and controlling it, even using their advantage of information asymmetry to control it, I would say, is different enough from EVERYONE KNOWING THE TRUTH, that yes, perhaps we can have this discussion.

When a super human entity such as a corporation gains such control over humans and thus politics as does a media conglomerate such as Sony, then YES, it becomes quite obviously VERY political!

Because there is a battle going on. The lines are being drawn. People who where fighting this battle will see this happening before those who were unaware to start with; however, the lines are now being drawn thanks to Edward Snowden, and this battle is becoming visible to all.

Meaning: GO was dead at birth from out of the sphincter of the NSA.

Clearly the tyrants of today disagree with you. They would not be trying so desperately to ban guns if they did not fear an armed population!

Also,

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, over 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, over 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 86 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

A striking work force isn't going to work when you are easily thrown into forced labor camps because you have been neutered in your ability to defend yourself.

All you are pointing out is that yes, the media uses the logical fallacy of an appeal to emotion in their argument to disarm the people.

Why are we even discussing guns? They account for less than 0.5% of deaths (excluding suicides) in the USA. You are two and a half times more likely to fall to your death accidentally than be killed by a gun. You are three and a half times more likely to die in a car crash.

Heart disease kills 28 innocent people in the USA every 25 minutes! Cancer kills another 28 innocent people in that time! More innocent people die from car crashes every minute than die from guns. Does a mad gunman kill 28 people every 25 minutes? I haven't even heard of any more such shooting this week, nevermind every 25 minutes since the Sandy Hook incident.

Guns don't even make the top 15 list* (below)! And #15 ranks in at 2.8% the amount of deaths as #1. In the interest of tackling problems that would actually make a meaningful difference, looking at causes at that small percentage of the problem is really a waste of time.

If any remember not too long ago, the 'year of the shark', it is much like how that 'epidemic' of shark attacks was suddenly so pressing in our consciousness. Not because you had any chance at all of dying of shark attacks, but simply because the media had chosen to spotlight the infinitesimally small amount of deaths caused by sharks. Just as you have no chance to die of sharks, you have no chance to die from guns. Just because the media purposely chooses to fill their pages with mostly gun crime doesn't mean that what they choose to report actually reflects the ratios that exist in reality. The tyrants have an agenda to disarm the people so that they can more easily enslave them. Just as the tyrants of Russia took control of the media in order to sway peoples opinions to suit their agenda, the tyrants of our countries have long ago done so as well.

In the USA, approximately 6,755 people die - every day. Twenty eight people dying is a sad thing, but irrelevant to the 6,755 people that die every day! The national media focuses on this negligible number of deaths because it suits the agenda of the parasitic ruling class. If they didn't choose to focus on it (for weeks and weeks even), then it would just be another 0.4145% of the deaths that occurred in a day.

Guns are our only defense against the next Trotsky, Stalin, Lennin or Mao once again purging a 100 million of their own people. Let's ban cars instead of guns. It would prevent more deaths, and cars are a lot less important to our freedom than guns. I would rather walk or bike to work than be thrown in the next gulag or purged because we allowed the tyrants to disarm their people.

Note that it is right to exclude suicides because: a) really, those people have the right to die, b) only half of suicides are by guns, thus you would only cut suicide by 50%, and c) you wouldn't even cut it by 50% as probably most of those people would use another way to kill themselves just like the other 50% of people who commit suicide do. Regardless, even if you don't exclude suicide then you are still more likely to die from falling or an auto accident than by a gun.

Proof of the pure BS that the media is stirring up against guns:

From the CDC's: National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 60, Number 4 (January 2012)

Numbers for 2010 (latest tabulated in the 2012 report):

Total deaths in 2010: 2,465,932

595,444 Heart Disease

573,855 Cancer

137,789 Chronic lower respiratory disease

129,180 Cerebrovascular disease

118,043 Accidents [A]

83,308 Alzheimer's

68,905 Diabetes mellitus

50,472 Influenza and pneumonia

37,793 Suicide [S]

37,843 Septicemia

31,802 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis

26,577 Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease

21,963 Parkinson's disease

17,001 Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids

... ( ^ top 15 )

16,065 Assault (homicide) [M]

472,889 All other causes

[A]:

118,043 Accidents (total)

-> 37,661 Transport accidents

---> 35,080 Motor vehicle accidents

-> 25,903 Accidental Falls

-> 600 Accidental discharge of firearms

-> ...

[S]:

37,793 Suicide (total)

-> 19,308 Suicide by discharge of firearms

-> 18,485 Suicide by other means.

[M]:

16,065 Assault (homicide)

-> 11,015 Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms

-> 5,050 Assault (homicide) by other means.

Let's be frank here:

Now I am Christian, but also being an evolutionist, even I can see the truth here:

North Asians are better at math than Europeans due to greater than two thousand years of Christian dysgenics.

Your post completely fails to counter what I said or what the link I provided exposes.

You start off by dismissing my only point with nothing but an assumption. Basically, the only thing you state in your post that you don't back up with a link is the one single point you try to make that would actually affect what I said.

Self identified race almost perfectly matches biological race. Thus, your first point, the only point that would counter the link I provided, is invalid.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Self-identif...

Everything else you said is either irreverent, based upon your faulty premise of self identified race being meaningless, or some anecdotal evidence you claim to have experienced.

Why does no one ever state the real facts on this issue? (Well, that is obvious, the truth is censored, oops, I mean politically incorrect.)

American's score better than everyone else, or at worst, second or so. What am I talking about?

...

To appreciate how an average can obscure huge variations in academic performance, just subdivide US test scores by race and ethnicity (for these data, see here). In the 2009 PISA reading scores for fifteen year olds from 65 nations and regions the average score is 500. The United States as a nation scored 500, a result hardly befitting a world power committed to educational excellence. The top scores come from Shanghai, China (556). But in second place are American students of Asian ancestry (541) who even out-perform students in Korea, Singapore, Japan and Hong Kong. In 7th place are US whites whose test scores exceed those in every European nation except Finland! Far down the ranking list are Hispanics (466) and near the bottom are US blacks (441). The 2007 TIMMS math results show nearly the identical pattern. Here in both 4th and 8th grade, US students of Asian ancestry cluster near the top together with Asians in Asia but close by are white Americans and further below are Hispanics and, near the bottom, American blacks.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/academic_excellence_a...

You are welcome for the information regarding the United States. There is plenty more if you look yourself, but it does seem that you are not yet interested in considering other sides of the argument. Of course I never said America is the whole world, I don't even live there. It was simply the example I gave.

America is a great example, as many people believe that their deficit problems are solely the cost of their wars. To open minded people it is usually an eye opener to see that they spend more on medicine. Australia has the same problem as every other western nation: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=10737420435. It is hard to argue that Australia's decades of health care spending growing at almost twice the rate of GDP growth to be anything other than spiraling out of control. You ultimately admit the trend I speak of, but then without evidence try to blame it on incidentals such as unhealthy eating and exercise.

It certainly is a far cry. Think about what you are claiming: That my ideas are of genetic purity. That is an extreme that is a far cry from simply not wanting excessive defectiveness - being the opposite extreme. By claiming my belief that one extreme is bad is somehow advocating for the other extreme is looking at it in black and white, completely ignoring the fact that there is a gradient of options and I am talking about some middle ground being better than either of the extremes.

As for appeals to emotion and the like, I see: You use them your whole argument up until now, but after I point out your tactic of relying on them, you try to claim it is instead I who have been relying on them, simply for calling a spade a spade. Socialized medicare is simply socialized medicare. There is perhaps no simpler term for it. Medical welfare? The government forcing you to divert your resources from your own offspring to subsidize others defective genetics at the barrel of a gun? What term would you prefer I use? If you really feel that ashamed of the fact your country has socialized medicare, that still does not make my assertion of you having it an intended insult or any kind of appeal to any emotion of such disgust.

I certainly have not used ad hominem attacks simply by pointing out your continued obvious attempts to inject labels such as 'genetic purity' and 'eugenics' into the discussion. Again, simply calling a spade a spade. You are doing better now, but it is undeniable that the meat of your earlier responses was to simply dismiss my argument because to you it sounds like 'eugenics' or 'ideas of genetic purity'.

I wish my stance were saving me money as you assume it does. But unfortunately my government takes my money at gun point to fund subsidized medicare. There are some defects that if I came down with I do truly feel in my heart that I would resist the natural urge of self preservation and accept my fate for the good of humanity. For example, cancer. So yes, I truly wish I could opt out of the injustice of socialized medicare. I also inherited the traits of being smart enough and having enough fortitude to save my money and thus I could afford to fix myself after almost anything like broken limbs and other accidents that are not my fault. However, if I tried to opt out of the dysgenic system, men with guns would come and take my wealth by force, and throw me in jail. Meanwhile, my government just announced they wouldn't fund the best (not even expensive) treatment for prostate cancer, whilst they continue to fund sex changes. Ah, the freedom of choice that socialism gives you.

Your using the Stephen Hawking argument is nothing more than an anecdote. It is the common argument: what if the person you save invented the cure for cancer. I always laughed at that one hearing it over my life. It essentially argues that the expense of spending unlimited resources to keep every possible soul alive is worth the off chance that one of the people you save will be worth it. Too bad it dooms future generations to more dependence and suffering than that one person is ever going to make up for.

That is the essential fact here. The current course of humanity is to do what we feel is good to do in this area, but it is entirely short sighted. In the medium and long term we are increasing the amount of inherent suffering, increasing the inherent dependence of man on medical intervention and thus the state and industry. We are becoming sicker, and less free. That cute little kid you saved by donating money to their medical procedure might make you feel good about yourself since you have lessened their immediate suffering, however, their lesser suffering does not offset the essentially unlimited suffering of the lineage of defectives that you have just created with your selfish desire to feel better about yourself. I do not intend that as an insult, as it is simply a vulnerability in human nature that the average person has which has been exploited to justify the dysgenic medical system by the medical industrial complex and those who have in their interest increasing the dependence of the people on the state. It is a human nature, and a system, that must be examined - instead of dismissed with emotive labels such as 'ideas of genetic purity'.

It is actually quite wise to consider DNA like any other programming language. It is a much more complicated language, being a spatial programming language, but it is a programming language none the less. Such a perspective provides great insight.

Anyways, you are correct that we are not there yet with actually fixing the bugs in code. We are not even remotely close to that point unfortunately.

The ideas of not subsidizing excessive defectiveness are a far cry from anything to do with genetic purity. It seems that you are in clear bias with a motive to shut down any discussion on the topic by poisoning the well of these truths by injecting labels such as 'genetic purity' and 'eugenics'. Any enlightened reader can see that your only arguments are appeals to emotion and guilt by association. A fallacious association as I have proved.

My original argument is simply that subsidizing excessive defectiveness is increasing the amount of suffering in the world, not helping to reduce it as one might intuitively believe. You are correct however that it also causes an excessive burden. An ever increasing burden. Medicare costs are spiraling out of control in all nations with socialized medicine, that includes America (Medicare and Medicaid, de facto free emergency care, and so on). In fact, the American federal budget allocates more to socialized medicine than to the military. A military known for its expansive cost. It will only become worse with the new full blown explicit socialized medicare system recently affirmed by the supreme court. This dysgenic path humanity is taking is the primary reason for the ever increasing medicare costs of countries with socialist medicare. This is off-topic from my original point, however, I share it with you as you asked and said you were very interested.

Your next paragraph is flawed in saying that somehow being anti-dysgenic is being dysgenic. I am advocating the lack of action. You are saying that requires selection? There is no selection I am calling for. I am advocating to let nature do the selection. I am calling for less artificial intervention. Not more.

Your next point is also defective in saying that someone who has a defect is not defective. I refer you to my programming analogy from my previous comment. A system with such grave defects that it cannot operate without expensive workarounds is certainly worthy of being called defective.

To your conclusion: you may feel such emotions regarding the harsh realities of the problem at hand, but emotions are not logic, and do not a reasoned opinion make.

If a program's code (DNA) has bugs that cause the system to fail when running without expensive workarounds (medical intervention), would that not be called bugs in the code? Also called defects? Thus it is defective code that cannot run without expensive workarounds.

Your understanding of what is eugenics is flawed. What I am talking about is not eugenics. Eugenics is artificial selection for attempted good. What is happening is artificial selection that results in degeneration, which is bad. That is called dysgenics. I am against that, and thus you can only call my argument anti-dysgenic.

Anyways, it is your comment that is absurd, as demonstrated by the majority of it being an insult. Try to remain civil - it better facilitates enlightenment of all parties to the discussion.

No, I am not joking at all. This is a serious mater. Unless you want humanity to eventually degenerate to beyond even the point where everyone is dependent on multiple surgeries simply to live past just being born, then this is something that needs to be though about, discussed, and rectified - no mater how difficult a subject.

Some of your questions appear to me to be purposely absurd in order to make the topic seem absurd. To answer your first question though, which is a reasonable one: It may not be a simple answer of some point is too defective, but the answer there must obviously be something other than the current idea that no level of defectiveness is too defective to be aided to breed more unfortunate burdened souls. My personal feeling is that the line has to be somewhere around being too defective to live without medical intervention beyond childhood or perhaps better is the point before one is otherwise able to have children and raise and support them to the age where they are self supportive.

Your pointing out that the issue is a complex one with no easy answer does not justify the continued destructive course that humanity is treading down.

Regardless of how hard an issue it is to solve, it must be recognized that the current setup of unlimited medical intervention to keep people alive and breeding, no mater how defective, in fact results in a degenerating gene pool, a downward spiral of suffering. This is the true reason why medicare costs keep increasing to the point now where it is the majority expenditure of any western nation (even in America, it is greater there than how much is spent on the military). Again you can see why the medical industrial complex is set on continuing this trend. If not for the limits of economics, this would eventually consume all resources of the world just to keep itself alive with medicine.

In some countries this has led to the talk of not providing medical intervention for some groups of people who need it to survive. Unfortunately the talk is always around not giving it to the old people in order to save money. While they may seem less important to save, it is actually the wrong group to withhold intervention from, as saving old people is not destructive to the gene pool. They need to start talking about withholding it from the opposite end of the age spectrum.

Does it bother you that you are subsidizing defective genetics and thus making humanity less fit and thus increasing the average level of suffering? You might think you are being nice by decreasing the suffering of an individual, but you are also dooming consciousness to suffer being born into a defective host that otherwise would not have happened if not for your subsidization of defective genetics.

I am curious as to what the higher than average enlightened readership of HN thinks on this?

Of course it is very taboo to say what I did as the medical industrial complex is on the side of causing this problem as they are then guaranteed not just one more customer, but a new lineage of customers.