full-disclosure - Re: Software developer looks at CRU code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:41:44 +1100
From: "Ivan ." <ivanhec@...il.com>
To: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@...rr.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Software developer looks at CRU code

CRU's programming 'below commercial standards'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8395514.stm


On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@...rr.com> wrote:
>
> --On December 6, 2009 3:46:49 PM -0800 "Thor (Hammer of God)"
> <thor@...merofgod.com> wrote:
>
> > No provision for funding with PUBLIC money.  Private funds (premiums)
> > only.
> >
>
> Really?  Page 115 of the GPO copy of HR 3962 has the heading "Abortions
> for which public funding is allowed".
>
> In sec 265 on page 160 the act authorizes funding abortions with federal
> funds for "a woman who suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury,
> or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the
> woman in danger of death unless the abortion is performed, including a
> life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the
> pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape
> or incest."
>
> This places the judgment in the hands of a physician, some of whom would
> be more than happy to certify a woman for abortion whose life was not
> really in danger.  But even if every case could be certified as true and
> accurate, the fact remains that federal funds would pay for abortions.
>
> The plan fact is that your statement is false, as is made obvious in the
> bill.
>
> Page 117, Sec 1303, Subsection b, subsection ii of the Senate version is
> titled "Abortions for which public funding is allowed"
>
> Need I go further?
>
> The fact is that, in their present forms, both the House and Senate
> version provide public funding for abortions.  No, it's not abortion on
> demand, but it is abortion.
>
> Stop taking the news media's word for the facts and do your own research.
>
> Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
> obvious, my opinions are my own
> and not those of my employer.
> ******************************************
> WARNING: Check the headers before replying
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/