The headline has nothing to do with "editor privileges", it was by submitted by a user (me). I agree that there was no server crash; perhaps I should have said "DoS" (there is a character limit you know), but the effect was about the same:

He said the result was "effectively a denial of service as e-mail queues, especially between posts, back up while processing the extra volume of e-mails."

No, the servers didn't crash, but the e-mail system (i.e being able to communicate over email) did. Don't take things so literally; headlines are meant to capture one's attention in a short amount of time.

"It's apparently pretty easy to police - bare bulbs are highly visible from the police helicopter."

I...wow.

Is Dr. Dobb's going to the same digital format as PC Mag? Here's a free trial, which shows you the last issue of PC Mag. I understand the idea is to placate current subscribers, because keeping it in the same format makes the change less severe. I know I get used to consistent magazines layouts, so this makes sense. But I don't know about the implementation; it feels like a zoomed out PDF to me. And if you want to zoom in, you have to go to 200% -- there is nothing in between. That doesn't feel natural to me and in fact, I find it next to impossible to read. Anyone actually like this format?

What do you expect from DarkReading, especially when the quotes are coming from firms trying to sell their various cure-all security offerings?

And, don't forget, Dubai is in the UAE and largely follows their moral standards. Laws are strictly enforced and they do not look the other way for tourists. There are multiple reports of people being arrested or detained for lengthy periods of time. A British couple was put in jail for allegedly having sex on the beach. And another person was imprisoned because a mass-spec machine in the airport detected a microscopic speck of marijuana on his shoe -- the kind you can pick up walking through the airport, or anywhere really. Personally, that does not describe a place I would like to go to relax.

This is a highly ignorant comment. A browser should never crash due to poorly written HTML, or due to anything. From the security angle, this is at least a DoS, but likely something more. Take a look at the IE7 0-day which is affecting millions of users. It is not a buffer overflow; it's a simple crash. However, because of JavaScript, one is able to manipulate ("spray") the heap enough to a point where even a simple crash can be used for code execution. ANY crash in a browser should be taken seriously.

I am surprised at the dismay over this. I didn't realize so many people here were such robophobes. Robots are productive members of our society; we must remember that our modern world would probably collapse without robots doing the type of work we no longer want to do. Maybe it's too advanced for THIS generation, but I think robots and human marriage will be a normal thing for our kids.

First of all, Opera is not a forgotten browser and has quite a big following. Maxthon outlived its usefulness as "IE with tabs" when IE7 came out. Chrome was interesting because of its threaded design (ie individual tabs can't crash the whole thing, in theory), its specially-developed V8 JavaScript engine and its focus on making web apps part of the desktop. Slapping a different GUI on Gecko/WebKit, along with a general lack of support for add-ons and other crucial pieces of the browsing experience, does not persuade a lot of people to switch to something "new." Especially when that "new" thing is just a downgraded version of what they're currently using.