Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Wah, wah (Score 1) 723

"The numbers turned out *much* higher than Fox News predicted

No, the numbers have turned out AT ALL. Because we haven't been given actual numbers. The numbers we got don't tell us who's paid (thus making time spent filling in an online form into an actual money-changes-hands transaction that actually insures somebody), and don't tell us how many people in that mix were the ones who had their insurance cancelled on them (roughly 6-million, so far).

So, actually, the numbers turned out pretty much right where critics said they would: abysmally low.

Comment Re:Plan not grandfathered and minimum standard. (Score 1) 723

The US will catch up to the idea that every human has the right to health without concern for cost or it will fail.

I think you don't understand what the word "right" means.

Should people also have a right to housing, clothing, food, climate control, utilities, and the rest, without concern for cost? Does everyone have that right? Because if you don't have those things, you could die. Just like you could by not having a "right" to the services of a podiatrist when you have achy feet.

If everyone has a right to the labor of professional medical people, and everyone has a right to the medicines, supplies, facilities, and multi-million dollar test equipment ... how does that work? We all have the right to assemble, the right to free speech, etc. The constitution protects us from government interference in such things. If we have a right to a little bit of the waking hours of a nutritionist, or the right to something that a bunch of people working in the pharma industry spent their week making, does that mean that everyone should get those things for free? Who pays? How can it be a "right" if you have to force your neighbor, on penalty of losing their wages or their home, to provide it to you? That's your idea of a right? Get a grip.

Comment Re:for a library... (Score 2) 447

And what languages are these languages themselves written in? At some point you're working with something written in C, C++ or assembler, and if those languages are dangerous to directly write apps in, then surely they must be equally dangerous to write the compilers and platforms on which your non-VM language runs.

At some point it's turtles all the way down. By writing in some other language, you're putting your faith in the people writing the interpreters, VMs and/or compilers, and in many cases those developers are little different than the unfortunate fellow that introduced this particular vulnerability into OpenSSL.

Comment Re:for a library... (Score 4, Insightful) 447

Moving away from C just means you now have to have faith in some bytecode virtual machine's memory and buffer management. Is it a more secure approach? Maybe, but if the root complaint is putting faith in complex software, coding in Java or some .NET language means trusting the people coding those engines are equally capable of screwing up. All these higher level virtual machines and interpreters are ultimately written in C.

Comment Re:Test servers your self with PoC (Score 1) 301

I know my webservers are all good, because they're linking against openssl 0.9.8. I just managed to confirm that Debian Squeeze's stock OpenVPN package links to the 0.9.8 library as well, and isn't statically linked, so, so far as I understand the vulnerability, there's no chance I was compromised.

It does indeed pay, on occasion, to stick with older versions. I had actually been looking to upgrade my VPN gateways to Wheezy a few months ago, and am rather glad I didn't.

Slashdot Top Deals

The best book on programming for the layman is "Alice in Wonderland"; but that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.

Working...