News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Heartbleed disclosure timeline: who knew what and when by kelnos on Monday April 14, 2014 @11:17PM (#7590147)
So basically what you're saying is the word "irrational" has no meaning whatsoever, and that every act is rational, just perhaps not to your point of view or level of information.

In the theoretical sense, I agree with that, but in a world of social interconnections, we need a meaningful framework and vocabulary for judging these sorts of things. While I believe that true objectivity is hard (and maybe impossible), I think there's a lot of social value in coming up with widely accepted definitions of rational vs. irrational, at least on a case-by-case basis.

Re:Heartbleed disclosure timeline: who knew what and when by andyjdavis on Monday April 21, 2014 @11:16PM (#7625578)
>what you're saying is the word "irrational" has no meaning whatsoever

It has meaning. It means "we have insufficient information" or "something is going on here that we don't know about or understand."

Re:Heartbleed disclosure timeline: who knew what and when by afarrell on Thursday April 17, 2014 @10:16AM (#7603669)
I think you are mixing up "rational" and "reasonable". It is not rational to flinch away from that puff of air you get at the optometrist, but it is reasonable.
Re:Heartbleed disclosure timeline: who knew what and when by kelnos on Saturday April 19, 2014 @05:22AM (#7613014)
Rational and reasonable are actually somewhat synonyms (the first definition of rational on dictionary.com includes "reasonable").