You're the guy who mischaracterized the statement "the west side highway will be underwater" to mean "the west side highway will only be underwater during tremendous storms."

If you are not a shill, then you're the kind of guy who will misunderstand anything to avoid changing his position. Because you deeply misunderstand that statement there.

I know exactly how you feel.

I did. I went to the same school your kids are going to.

Uh, what exactly do you want me to say, that your reading comprehension sucks? I'm sorry that you can't see it.

Why do you think it will be renewed? I don't think they have enough votes.

The predictions are poor. Or do you just ignore the studies that have shown that the computer models don't match reality?

I'm not seeing how that's the problem. Ultimately it's all going to go across (roughly) the same IP pathway, right?

Oh, yeah, I just got emails from all my responses for the last week.

The compatibility problems mentioned are because of people not following the standard. They're not a problem with the standard itself.

us-cert.gov doesn't give really give you enough info. Look here for a fix that fits within the protocol. No one wants to do any serious work on it though because SSL isn't worth it.

POODLE is an implementation problem, not a fundamental cryptography problem.
Practically speaking, it doesn't make much difference. Security is no better than your implementation.

Also, it seems I'm not getting email notifications when people reply to my comments anymore. I suspect that is related as well, both happened about the same time.

I remember back in 98 or so, Yahoo actually did do encryption in Javascript when they sent the password over the wire (for yahoo mail). I was impressed when I saw it. I suspect it had some kind of weakness, but I doubt anyone ever broke it.

Corn? HFCS was the thing to be outraged about last decade. We're on to the new thing now, man. It's wheat! All that gluten is a real boogeyman! In fact, let's get rid of carbs altogether, they never did anyone any good.

But that we are so far from any kind of AI that worrying about what form it might take is stupid. Yes, there are lots of things that might happen in the far future. Until they are closer, worrying about them is silly. There have been stories from people who are all paranoid about AI and think we need to start making with the rules. No we don't, we are so far away we don't even know how far away we are. We also have no idea what form it'll take. May turn out that self awareness is a uniquely biological trait and we never make computers that are truly strong AI.

Also if you are betting your life (regardless of if this means an actual bet, singular investment of all assets, etc) on something far off, you are a moron. You have no idea when a technology will happen, if it'll even be possible, and if it is if it'll even be marketable. Want a great example? SED, surface-conduction electron-emitter display. Reasonably chance you've never even heard of it. Was a new tech from Canon, basically a flat, large, hig rez take on CRT. Offered extremely high refresh rates (and thus low blur) great contrast ratio, wide viewing angle, etc. Very exciting display technology lots of people looked forward to as an LCD alternative. Wouldn't displace LCD, but would be a better technology for many uses. It was real too, actual working sets were shown at CES in 2006.

What happened? Well as a result of litigation, the financial downturn, and the general market, they decided to pack it in and stop development. They shut down and liquidated that division in 2010, and there's been no further development. So despite it being real and doable, it didn't happen and almost certainly never will happen.

Now compare that to the concept of strong AI, which we have no idea if it even can exist, if it does what form it will take, and if so what technology will be required. Maybe not the best thing to be betting the farm on.