The worry (and article) is about attacks that happened BEFORE public disclosure. After, it's the admin's fault straight-up. Before, nobody (basically) had any hope of detecting or stopping it.

It proves that the NSA didn't use Heartbleed for widescale private-key-harvesting attacks.

There's more to come in the exciting adventures of Bennett Haselton!

...So why does Slashdot redirect HTTPS back to HTTP??

Be polite, Bennett.

You've got your period and comma keycaps swapped. Or you're European, I guess. Either way, it doesn't make sense to write numbers that way.

Why is this on Slashdot?

Well, you see:

It's just stupid to blame a lack of policy for somebody doing something illegal. The absence of a policy in no way means the entity endorses an activity.

I suppose you might. Because I don't see how, if something is already illegal, it also needs to be against "policy". Do all company/university policies have to comb through the entire legal code and duplicate it in policy?

Perl 5 pretty much satisfies everything you're looking for. What's the problem with Perl again?

Thank you!

The summary makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time. So the people who wrote the law don't think there are any costs of compliance? I'm sure that's not news. That right there is a HUGE problem with government solutions.

1 in 10 deaths, huh? That's a bold statement considering the huge qualifications on it:
* 22-64 years old
* preventable

So the actual number is much less than 1 in 10, not much more as the summary says.

Not "incentivizing". "Inciting".

Neither "incent" nor "incentivize" are words. Using them makes you look illiterate.