It would, for the sake of their own customers, but in reality it's not even necessary. TFA calls Chrome the second most popular browser, although I'm pretty sure it's firmly in first place. If those certificates are not trusted in Chrome then, regardless of whether or not they are trusted in IE or Firefox, the website owners are still going to get a new certificate from a different CA. Even with only Google taking these steps, CNNIC is hosed. If Mozilla follows suit it's really only academic at that point, but it would be right for them to do so just to remove an untrusted CA.

No. Apparently Slashdot did not start supporting Unicode.

Wait, your username is " ", did Slashdot start supporting Unicode all of a sudden?

The worst thing about it is that, unlike other sites, Slashdot is completely worthless and unusable today. I keep loading it out of habit to check throughout the day and forget that there's not a single thing I want to read. I've been going back to yesterday's stories to see if I missed anything.

You might be right, Firefox does seem to be experiencing a certain level of feature creep and bloat these days. Perhaps Mozilla should think about a new browser, one that is specifically designed to be fast and high-performance, while still adhering to the standards. They could call it Phoenix.

And a major security bug in Safari, apparently.

You have that fantasy too? Me too.

The Air France flight that crashed a few years ago off Brazil comes to mind. I believe the inexperienced pilot was flying the plane while the sensors were iced over and the computer was telling him to climb steeply when it was exactly the wrong thing to do.

There's another good example. The single B-2 that we've lost was because, again, the sensors were clogged with moisture. The computer tried to go nose up immediately after leaving the runway and the plane stalled. Here's the video of it crashing. Computers are a great aid, but we're still a ways away from completely relying on them to move passengers when a couple of faulty inputs can bring the entire plane down.

Exactly the kind of work environment that any company tries to foster. Nothing says "productivity" and "efficiency" like "scared".

And do what, exactly? Ask the guy nicely to land the plane at the nearest airport? If your pilots are fighting then you're already losing the battle, having someone come in and offer them a beverage isn't going to help. Anyone who cannot fly the plane does not need access to the cockpit, you're just adding more points of failure.

No, that's stupid. You need to count the total number of times that aircraft have tried to be hijacked or crashed (or, simply, someone tried to gain access to the cockpit). Not the total number of flights. A flight without any security events is not a data point when trying to rate the effectiveness of security procedures.

Let's not put a backdoor into the security measures we already have. More people in the cockpit is a good answer.

People outside the cockpit should not be able to unlock the cockpit, period. Put more people in the cockpit if you want, but that's where control of the plane needs to stay. Also, if one entity can send a signal to the plane to unlock everything, what's stopping any other entity from doing that?

Such as in the event of an emergency landing initiated by a hijack attempt?

Why would the cabin crew have the code? The code is for the pilots. If the cabin crew want to come in then the pilots unlock the door from the inside. If your'e talking about eliminating edge cases, giving the entire cabin crew the code is a great place to start looking.

It's a single switch. The 2-switch idea could mean one switch is on the top left of the console, for the pilot, and the other is on the top right, for the co-pilot. They can each reach the switch with one hand while seated, but it would be too far apart for someone to try and hit both at once. They can manually fly the plane and also hit the switch.

I don't think 100% is a reasonable goal in anyone's mind. 99.9% might be enough. 99% might be enough.