That isn't the surprise. The surprise is that even if you go out of your way to not publicly document some things (such as high school), this information can be found out through your friends list.

burnallmpegs.org makes more sense, since it's technologies like h.264 that are preventing widespread use of the tag.

Intuitively, longer sessions can lead to session hijacking. This implies that it's safer to reconnect. I'm sure ssh has some way to prevent session hijacking though.

Actually, even your negative synopsis of the piece flies in the face of conventional wisdom, which is that attacks of Chinese origin are all a carefully orchestrated by the ruthless and scheming Chinese government.

Security researchers have identified the attacks against Google to be largely from the Chinese government, as were the politically motivated attacks against the Dala Lama and other Tibetan exiles. There is almost no doubt that the majority of the hacking that goes on in China (and elsewhere) is of the sort that TFA reports on, but linking it to the recent attacks on Google and other US government contractors is disingenuous.

Not only that, but even if you fix the double h and put the requisite slashes after the colon, you get this [warning, link doesn't work]. So you think, "oh I see, they forgot to put the dot in between 'government' and 'html'!" It is then that you realize the url has no slashes or periods at all.

For everyone's hilarious enjoyment, here is the full text of the broken url

hhttp:latimesblogslatimescomentertainmentnewsbuzz201001avatar-pulled-from-2d-screens-by-chinese-governmenthtml

I think you're missing the whole crux of their argument. Yes, IE was the source of at least one of the security holes, but France and Germany are mandating switching as though it's some sort of panacea. IE was just one link in the chain of exploits used in the attack. Maybe destroying one link in the chain destroys the chain, but it is more likely that they will find a different link to continue the attack. Like maybe a zero day in Firefox or one of these known exploits.

I truly believe that Firefox and probably Chrome is a more secure browser than IE, and I completely agree with the recommendation from France and Germany. But even if Google had no IE they would not have been completely protected from the attacks, and both countries aren't completely protected by some memo mandating the end of IE. To think so is foolishness. Don't let one poorly written PCWorld article convince you otherwise.

The problem with key exchange is that there is no central authority. Thinking about it in a TLS kind of way, every cert is a self signed cert.

It sounds like a good idea on the outset, but weather this will actually increase neutral networks through carrier competition depends on 3 things:
1. Lock in: Google has done a pretty good job of fighting against handset lock in, but we will never get past the fact that we have both CDMA and GSM networks, and even the GSM networks don't have the same 3G. So you will never be able to bring your latest and greatest unlocked phone to Verizon from AT&T, for example. Couple this with the fact that most phones have to be "unlocked" even to work on another network with the same protocol and you have a real problem. Even without handset lock in, every wireless provider will require you to sign a 2 year contract, meaning you won't be able to change phone service so easily.
2. Carrier Collusion: When one provider upped the price of texting from 10 cents to 20, every other provider followed suit. They could easily do the same thing by switching off access to Hulu at the same time.
3. Consumer Awareness: If every consumer really makes net neutrality their top priority, than they can affect change with the new competition, assuming there is no lock in and collusion between networks. The problem is, most people care more about the other things, mostly network quality and price. If you spend $75 for provider A's neutral network, but provider B blocks Hulu but gives you an alternative site provided by them, as well as free cable TV and unlimited on demand for as part of a $60 "double play" package, most people will forget their principals and go with the better value.

RTFA, but yes:

While Google and Verizon disagree about the degree of authority the FCC has to oversee network management, they seem to concur about the agency's limited powers in other areas. Although Congress has given the Commission oversight over radio and television broadcasters, these mandates should not be transferred over to the Internet, the companies warn. There is "no sound reason to impose communications laws or regulations on the robust marketplace of Internet content, applications, and services."

This whole "Google will work it out with ISPs on a case by case basis" is probably the scariest development in net neutrality in a long time. The only reading I can have of it is that Verizon had something that Google wanted, and they said "not until you change your stance on net neutrality". Net neutrality advocates have lost a big partner here.