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.

"Well, the world needs ditch diggers too!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Funny how most gun control advocates in the US will swear up and down that this kind of fascist crap isn't part of their agenda. The gun rights crowd gets called paranoid for even suggesting it as a future possibility.

If you don't want to own guns, that's fine and I honestly have no problem at all with someone making that personal decision. Where I draw the line is when someone tries to make that decision for me. Whether or not I actually do own or want to own any firearms is my business and mine alone. If one accepts that self-defense is a basic human right, one must also accept that the tools necessary to exercise that right are intrinsically and inseparably linked. God/nature/whatever does not provide the average person (in particular, women and children, but applicably to all) the means for self defense against hardened violent criminals, those on stimulant drugs such as cocaine, PCP, etc, and those who through some mental defect have become uncontrollably violent. God/nature/whatever also does not provide the average person the means for self defense against groups of violent attackers or those using tools of their own (be they guns, knives, hammers, baseball bats, or sharp sticks). Lastly (and of course what everyone will jump on as soon as it's mentioned), God/nature/whatever does not provide anyone with the means for resisting a tyrannical government which has violated the rights of its citizens and begun treating them as subjects or slaves.

From my perspective, a society which bars average, decent, law-abiding people from obtaining the best available means of defense against anyone or any group meaning to do them or other innocent people harm has violated one of the fundamental justifications for having government: defense of peoples' rights. I completely understand that many if not most in some societies (such as in the UK, Australia, and some others) decided as a group that they didn't want guns around anymore. However, some invariably would prefer (and no doubt some actually do - at great personal risk) to keep guns around for self defense. They have a natural/God-given right to do so and no law passed by any number of people in the society can take away that right.

If all but one vote away basic, fundamental human rights, this remains the essence of the tyranny of the majority. It is three foxes and a hen voting on what's for dinner. It is always wrong and never justifiable and no government should be allowed to do it as it is a violation of the sole justification for the existence of government.

Wait a moment, are you saying that there are people who might ignore the gun-free zone signs and carry a gun anyway? What kind of person would even think of doing such a thing?

But your point is well taken. I think the best way to go is to stop everyone but the police and the military from carrying guns, just like they do in Mexico. Then we could enjoy Mexico's legendarily low violent crime rate right here in the United States.

Exactly, which is why you always see mass shootings at gun shows, gun stores, and gun ranges where there's lot of guns, lots of ammunition, and lots of gun-obsessed people.

Thankfully, there are some places where that sort of thing isn't tolerated, like schools, malls, and US Postal offices. Ahh yes, gun-free zones, where violence is a thing of the past.

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.

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.

We have actually had some good insurance regulators in California. I don't know much about the current one but he seems to have achieved a pro-citizen rather than pro-company record.

I did not check with the state before I rejected the trash plan, perhaps it wasn't legal.