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.

Of course I can ignore words. But some words matter, and some don't.

Please tell us again how Jimmy Carter wasn't elected.

Wow. You think I distorted the meaning of "elected" by pointing out the fact that Carter was elected.

You're a completely pathetic liar.

(And no, I didn't read the rest of your comment. It's a shame you spent so much time on it and no one will read it.)

You're lying. And it's obvious you're lying. Jimmy Carter is a Democrat, and he was elected as one. Barack Obama is a Democrat, and he was elected as one. They are both elected Democrats in every possible sense of the words. You're wrong. And you know you're wrong; we know this because instead of pointing to the meanings of the words, you waffled and said "no reasonable person would" use the words that way. You didn't point to the actual common definitions of the words because you know they don't back you up. You know you're wrong.

You're lying. As usual.

You're lying. I am capable of not accusing you of lying, but I choose to point out the fact that you are lying.

Bullshit. If you're lying -- which I've proven you are -- then that is necessarily a sufficient answer to the question of why I accused you of lying.

I wonder why you think that someone else pointing out the fact that you are lying is the one who looks bad.

It's really weird, but then again, it's minor compared to your other issues. Like, for example, the fact that you chose to make this discussion about very specific wording of a "challenge" that, despite repeated implicit and explicit requests, you never actually cited.

Jeff, I'm sorry that you're paying more. I'm envious that your state is implementing single-payer, though! California considers and rejects the bill every session, so far.

MVP itself is not-for-profit. Interesting that they think the pool in the two states they focus on is now that much more expensive. I can't imagine why.

Thanks

Bruce

To pick a nit, if you require medical attention after an auto accident, typically the at-fault driver's auto policy would need to cover that.

If they are so kind to stick around and your expenses do not exceed the limits.

Certainly such scams existed, but 30 seconds of googling can typically separate the good from the fraud.

The web helps. At the time, I was not able to see the plan until the salesman was present.

I think you are confusing laissez-faire capitalism with freedom. In this particular case the insurers had the task of operating a risk pool, but no incentive to allow any but the lowest risk customer into the pool. Freedom was harmed overall, as a significant number of people had no viable path to medical care.

There are a good number of people who, like you, would feel less encumbered if they were able to live on an island without any civil services and thus without any burden to pay for their fellow man rather than themselves. My surmise is that few of them would survive very long. However, I would encourage you to try if you are able to find such a place. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

False. It's true that words have no inherent meaning, but people have meanings for those words; or, put another way, those words mean things to people. This is obviously and nearly self-evidently true, and it is also clear that you believe it to be true.

False.

And the words they use actually have consequences. The people do things through those words. In this case, they continue to disinform and polarize the electorate to strengthen their own positions. That should concern you, since it is what they do.

You're lying. Nothing I have ever said or done makes such an untrue thing in any way "apparent." You cannot even come up with a remotely reasonable argument for how that would be "apparent."

Picked sides in what? I picked sides in whether words mean things, yes, as have you, although you misstate which side you are on. I picked sides in whether I think Reid is an asshole, as you did, and you're on my side. I picked sides in whether Democrats often use false charges of racism to distract people from their own failings and valid criticisms of their policies and actions.

None of that even remotely implies that I put more importance on words than actions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G4zkxFpBrc

I am hardly surprised that insurance companies do not like the situation of having any additional regulation imposed upon them and will raise fees or do anything else they can do to protest and to discredit it.

If you've even hung around the emergency department of a hospital, you will have seen where the real cost of uninsured patients was going. Suddenly this cost is transferred from the hospital to subsidized plans. Ultimately, it should result in better management of the expense.

If you have so few choices in that state, I'll bet the problem is government-based cronyism.

I think it's called laissez-faire capitalism. Too little regulation means that the market will concentrate on the most profitable customers and not necessarily provide any service at all to others.

The point of insurance is that it's a risk pool that lowers the cost of saving to pay for a catastrophe for every participant, based on the probability that most folks won't need it. But it doesn't work for the folks who aren't allowed in the pool. And the reality is that everyone will need it sometime, and that it is normal for a society for some proportion of its people to be sick.