In other news, Congress accidentally approves arts funding.

I agree. He is an expert in video compression, not patent law. I think his argument as to VP8's patent status is flawed. He claims that VP8 is likely covered by patents because it shares many features with H.264. However, I suspect that these common features are those that are covered by known patents. A list of all known H.264 patents is available on MPEG-LA's website; therefore, it is public knowledge what features of H.264 are protected by known patents. However, nobody has been able to name a specific patent that VP8 violates. On2 surely must have reviewed this list when designing VP8, and borrowed all those features of H.264 that are not covered by known patents.

They wouldn't even have to torture anyone. All seven identities are known. Bruce Schneier named two in his blog, and all seven can be found in the comments.

It is true. It also applies to certain printer drivers and Adobe Photoshop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation

You know, we actually have a secure WiFi encryption protocol now. It is called WPA.

Because Starbucks is so commonplace in the "rural areas of the developing world."

It looks like a 3-clause BSD license to me... http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/

I am no expert on licenses, but according to GNU, the 3-clause BSD license used by WebM is GPL-compatible. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

I have used VP8, and I'd also say "VP8 doesn't suck." I will agree that On2's website for it is misleading. I will also agree that H.264 does a better job of compressing video than VP8. However, just because VP8 falls short of the best performing format available doesn't mean it sucks. VP8 still is a good format, and I would argue that it is the best patent-free format for web video, assuming Google is correct about its patent status.

128-bit RC4 as used in SSL/TLS is not necessarily insecure. I know of no situation where the crypto has been directly broken in practice. Certain RC4-based systems, like WEP, have been broken in part due to flaws in RC4 but also from poor implementation. RC4 as used in HTTPS is still quite secure, even though AES is preferred. RC4 HTTPS seems completely acceptable for protecting most user's Google search terms. It has been successfully used to protect far more sensitive information.

Linux also supports detailed ACLs: http://www.suse.de/~agruen/acl/linux-acls/online/

SELinux is more about limiting what applications, not users, are allowed to do.

This service isn't really offering anything new as far as I can tell. SlightlyMorbid.com offers a similar service, but also has options to have messages sent if you are injured or hospitalized or such in addition to death. Also, DeathSwitch.com offers to send messages after your death too, but instead of relying on trusted friends, it requires you to confirm that you are alive every so often. If you fail to respond for a certain period of time, your mail is sent. You can customize these time intervals. It even allows you to set up one message for one recipient completely free.