Today's mass-scale manufacturing will collapse, and needs will change, so my bet is that it will be very useful to be the guy who can design models to be fed to 3D printers.

This is going to become a useful skill anyway in the next few decades, so it's not a bad investment for a hobby today.

Will lawyers be useful? (I know many slashdotters will laugh and say we'll be better off without them, but the new forms of society will need new rules and a new justice system - and programmers would do this as badly as lawyers would program.)

The main problem is that we are human being, that we are *NOT* robot.

As human beings we are the product of millions of years of evolution - an evolution that did not encounter _any_ form of electronic gadgets until very recently.

The fact that we can drive a car (or any vehicles) is not because we *adapt* to the way the car operate, but it is another way around.

We engineer the vehicles so that they can become our tool, and the operation of that tool is *within* our range of capability.

While using cellphone (and now smartphone) have been accused of causing a lot of accidents, they are not the only distraction. Long before the advent of the cellphone, a lot of traffic accidents were caused by drivers adjusting their radio (either looking for station of turning up/down the volume), or adjusting the seat, or the air condition, or whatever.

It is thus evidenced that we human beings are not made to be effective "multi-tasking" device

And smartphones are not the only culprit - I have known drivers who were so distracted by their on-board sat nav devices such as tomtom (and other brands) they drove their car into poles, walls, and so on

Personally when I drive, I drive. If I have to adjust my seat, my mirrors, my radio, or whatever, I stop my car at the roadside (or any other safe place) to make the adjustment, and then continue my journey.

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