Ie is there a practical difference between 30%, 50% and 90% of people's browsers being exploitable with a particular exploit? In any case it a phenomenally large number of people.

And you have never copied files from one device to the other.

He does, he's just ultra paranoid and routes it all through TOR.

Remember back when the EOLAS patent was being waved about and it was suggested that browser makers may have to implement "click to play" to avoid it.

Strange that a year after EOLAS gets their arse handed to them in a Texas court we get to a similar place for entirely different reasons.

Do you operate purely on cash?

Of course not, he clearly operates purely on sarcasm.

What the hell is this? A death star for ants? How can we be expected to deploy storm troopers to destroy planets... if they can't even fit inside the building?

That's easy, you just build it round one of these.....

It depends. How much do you want to bet on your not finding yourself in this scenario:

Everything? But feel free to live your life like a scared little pussy if you want.

Just to be a pendant,

Slashdot would be so much better without your kind hanging around.

A certificate can (obviously) only have one issuer.
What he's suggesting is having multiple certificates corresponding to one private key.

This seems like an eminently sensible idea. Part of the problem is that the Certifying Authorities get "too big to fail" and it takes something pretty massive for a CA to have their authority revoked as doing so impacts a lot of users.

If sites (at least those interested enough in HA to preemptively guard against the invalidation of a CA) could back their keys with multiple certs that would be very useful.

Angry Birds seem to sponsor all sorts of things, why not space exploration?

An Angry Bird shaped vessel hurtling out of the solar system would be awesome though I guess we'd have to hope that aliens aren't green and porcine lest they get the wrong idea.

In any case, there were tracks in the silver like some animal scurrying and eating through the layer.

That's the problem with WORM media.

There is caching and there is caching.

A caching proxy merely serves content that was specifically requested. Google's 'cache' is serving images that Google themselves are associating with a word or phrase. Thus Google is making some sort of editorial decisions in regards to the content that a simple proxy is not. Now that "editorial decision" may be being made by an algorithm and that algorithm may make it's decisions based on other peoples content but at the end of the day Google is in a very real sense curating that content.

It's a fine line (or perhaps a wide, murky continuum) but in the pursuit of being more useful to people Google has in many senses moved from a 'mere' indexer to an aggregator/publisher. As such it is probably not surprising that simply saying "hey, it's not us, we just link to what's there" doesn't always apply.

Because it goes against Political Correctness.

I think it's fair to say that this specific situation has bugger all to to with "political correctness" in the sense you mean it.
It's about oil, "stability in the middle east" (ie oil), an "ally to the west" (ie oil).

It is not "political correctness". It is diplomacy in the worst sense of the word. The sense that allows countries to "smooth over" inconvenient realities and buddy up to the extent that dependency increases to the point becomes practically impossible to say "no". The "bleeding hearts" didn't get us here, the cold pragmatists did.

Political expediency is the problem not political correctness. The solution? Frankly I don't see an easy one.

Doesn't sound like "marketing speech" to me, it sounds like trying to express the life in a fashion more useful to a human being. The term "Marketing speech", at least when used derogatively, suggests obfuscation or hiding reality.

Here what they are saying is clear. As someone considering the drive I can easily say (without doing any sums) that my use case is nowhere near as "bad" as the pathologically SSD unfriendly situation they describe and quickly conclude (to the extent I trust their information) that I don't need to worry about wear being an issue for the expected service lifetime of the disk.

If the numbers were more borderline then expressing it as write cycles might be more useful as people would need to do the sums for their individual use case. However because they are so large it makes sense to describe them in a way that obviates the need to do any sums for 99.999% of realistic use cases.

vaccinating children against various disease - by giving their immune systems an "easy ride" - their immune systems simply do not develop

That makes no sense. A vaccination only makes someone's immune system work harder, earlier. It is just like "playing in the dirt", only with particularly useful dirt.

I can be reasonably sure that my ISP and their upstreams aren't going to be injecting malware into the Slashdot pages I view. I might trust a coffee shop or a hotel. I'm not sure I want to routinely connect to random access points though.