Well yes, in the same sense people who use hosting providers for their websites have to trust that their hosting provider doesn't mess with their files (a CDN is just a type of hosting provider after all). There is no break in the TLS trust model though, the client will authenticate both the original host and the CDN.

CDN hosted content will be linked to by the page served to the client just like it is now. Example: you connect to https://examplebank.com/ the page served back to you links to content (images, scripts, we) hosted on https://examplecdn.com/ Both links establish properly and TLS security model isn't broken.

Though youtubes design decision probably predates this. Google's own style guide states that unsigned integers should not be used simply to indicate a number will never be negative and instead to use assertions for that. Basically it emphasizes not to use unsigned integers unless there is a really good reason to do so.

My apologies. The wiki article linked provides a decent primer (it also lists relevant specifications).

DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities

IMO, DANE is the best alternative. It requires trusting DNSSEC, but if combined with key pinning it could be much more effective than the security model in place today.

HTTP STS is supposed to help mitigate Wifi pharming attacks and has already been deployed by a few major sites, the real long term solution for this is DANE though.

Any reason why a random single-pass 'badblocks' run wouldn't work for this purpose?

The gay marraige issue isn't a States rights issue no matter how much supporters wish it was. The federal government doesn't issue or dissolve marriage licenses it is completely the domain of the States. All the Federal courts have said is that if the states wish to have a legal institution of marriage that it must be compatible with the 14th amendment, and States which do not allow gays to marry do not meet that requirement.

The federal courts are not infringing on states rights, they are protecting individual rights granted by the U.S. Constitution from infringement by the States.

Android didn't fork Oracle's Java code, they created it from scratch (they borrowed from Harmony which was from scratch, details, details) with the same API. It is a different set of legal issues entirely. If Google had forked OpenJDK instead, they'd be completely in the clear, but Android would have been GPL licensed instead of Apache2 licensed.

I believe that is only required if you want to call it a "Java" VM. If you want to call it Java it has to pass the tests, which is a reasonable requirement. The JVM code itself is GPL though, and you can use it for whatever you just can't call it Java.

Easy, the lactose intolerant party takes the 16 cakes, trades 6 of them with cream to the other party for the 6 he has without cream and throws the remaining 5 cakes with cream in the garbage. Even if the other party doesn't trade the picker gets to eat 5 and the divider gets to eat 6, but none of them with cream.

Rigging piles always works to the advantage of the picker not the divider, that's why the system is fair.

If the well off person values the better room at more than "fair" price (fair being defined here as what the other roommate valued it at) that means the other roommate gets the other room cheaper than he would have valued it. That's win-win is it not?

If the divider rigs the piles, you just take the pile you know they want and then barter with them afterwards. By dividing it that way the divider loses leverage it actually works out in favor of the picker.

Firefox is also disabling SSL 3.0. Also, according to stats cited by Wikipedia, 99.3% of web servers support TLS 1.0

Driverless cards will have all kinds of sensors and likely have blackboxes as well. If one gets in to an accident data from those senser coudl be used to reconstruct the cause of that accident and assign blame. Insurance companies will love it assuming driverless cars are safer and turn out to be the victim of accidents more than the cause of accidents. Liability can be covered similar to the way it is handled now. Operator indemnifies manufacturer and carries an insurance policy to cover the assumed risk, those premiums will reflect the risk of driverless car being at fault in an accident.