I don't need anything from you. I see you post bullshit and I reply. Not a very complicated situation, here. If I could get you to be honest at some point that would be a nice perk but I don't expect that from you any more.

Your actions do not seem to be in line with that goal. You are currently calling for the consumption of millions - if not billions - of federal dollars in investigations that are politically motivated and driven by nothing more than "because I want to see this investigated". Eventually you will have completely discarded the legal system in your unending desire to throw out Obama.

This does not sow the seeds of reform. This sows the seeds of revenge. Eventually the shoe will be on the other foot and don't think that the democrats won't remember your efforts. If your goal is to drive the government into a total standstill, you might accomplish that by setting this machine into motion, but you certainly won't bring about "reform", "justice", or anything else that would be a positive change in the federal government.

With that statement you are doing more to prove my point than to disprove it. I had stated before that you would not read a link to a site like dailykos or huffingtonpost (while expecting me to read reason, powerline, and townhall). Here you just brushed aside one of the oldest names in journalism in our country because you perceive them to somehow be evil or inferior to your conservative blogs.

I stand by my point. You won't read sources you don't like. You hold the rest of the world to a much different standard of reading than what you hold yourself to.

By review do you mean reconsider, or do you mean declare and invest in?

That quotation doesn't apply to either case. Nobody "came" for anyone. There was no force or government action at play here. So indeed the quote applies equally - by which I mean not at all to either - to both cases.

Thank you. However unlike you I suspect Boehner has actually read the existing reports.

And then what is your next plan to have Obama thrown out when HR36 fails to do it? How many Benghazi investigations do you want the taxpayer to pay for?

Sure, that is a possibility, but if you don't take me seriously then why devote so much of your time to me? Surely you have more serious matters to deal with, don't you?

I think we need to take a serious look at the "many eyes" theory because of this. Apparently, there were no eyes on the part of parties that did not wish to exploit the bug for close to two years. And wasn't there just a professional audit by Red Hat that caught another bug, but not this one?

I have to say I'm even less confident in the plan to couple it to DNSSEC.

Sure. We're better. But we need to be even better than that.

I'd say more than just the "community". We have a great many companies that incorporate this software and generate billions from the sales of applications or services incorporating it, without returning anything to its maintenance.I think it's a sensible thing to ask Intuit, for example: "What did you pay to help maintain OpenSSL?". And then go down the list of companies.

OK guys. We've promoted Open Source for decades. We have to own up to our own problems.

This was a failure in the Open Source process. It is just as likely to happen to closed source software, and more likely to go unrevealed if it does, which is why we aren't already having our heads handed to us.

But we need to look at whether Open Source projects should be providing the world's security without any significant funding to do so.

Shhh! He believes nobody else is reading these comments. He's going to have to call you a liar for reading, as he can never be wrong and therefore you must not be telling the truth about reading these comments!

Don't waste time reading slashdot.

There is a group that wants to build a monument for Satanism. If I contributed to that and my employer was opposed to it, would you be opposed to them firing me for it?