I strung a hammock between two chimneys and one of the chimneys collapsed on top of her.

Violent video games claim another victim. Maybe now they'll put that NC-17 rating on that I've been saying for years Frogger needs. Jack Thompson will be vindicated, and Rockstar games will pay for their GTA series.

Maybe when this is all over, we can achieve our ultimate goal of putting a warning label on Tetris.

Multi-threading is still the same rule, and can be seen as a sequential series of singular threads that have stop / pause points. That's what happens on a single processor anyway.

Well, if you can pay the up-front costs of moving some large amounts cash around for me, I'll give you a cut of that cash and tell you more.

If I say that people engaged in prostitution are more likely to have STDs, am I a knowledgeable person, or would you convict me of engaging a prostitute? Perhaps I must also be a fool because I know things about 419 scams? Surely I'm a terrorist for seeing weaknesses in the TSA programs.

Anonymous Coward demonstrates prior art. Victory is ours.

How long until Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner, Verizon, etc. "stop carrying Wikileaks information" over their infrastructure?

Sometimes even compulsively: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_militaries_of_ancient_Greece

Also, graphite used as a neutron moderator was a substantial contributing factor to the Chernobyl incident. The graphite burning spread a lot of radiation.

You sir, would never have built a subway system.

Anybody who touches BGP needs to understand route filtering.

  * Would I trust everything I see from Sprint? Yes.
  * Would I trust anything except what I expect from the local ISP I route to? No.
  * Would I expect Sprint to execute the same filtering as above? Yes.

BGP nodes should always have filters on their connections that describe what is allowed to be accepted. Every failure I can think of... and I'm sure most notable ones that have happened... have been caused by failure to properly filter incoming routes.

http://www.comcast.com/peering/

"Applicant must maintain a traffic scale between its network and Comcast that enables a general balance of inbound versus outbound traffic."

This isn't about Netflix, this is about a peering agreement. L3 has effectively said, "We anticipate we will move a lot more traffic in the near future across our peering links." L3's press release makes NO mention of Netflix. It seems as likely that L3 is posturing as that Comcast is posturing. Comcast isn't (in anything public) threatening to restrict L3 traffic. Losing that peering connection means it would be routed to Comcast through one of L3's other links... which they would also pay for. Cogent and Sprint, for example, had a huge peering spat. Of course, that did result in a partitioned Internet, but that could have been dealt with by alternate peering that I bet L3 has.

L3, in another world, would charge Comcast if they transmitted more traffic away from Comcast than to Comcast.

This ignore the fact that I think Comcast is a scum company, but that's another story...

Root servers point to top-level domains. com, net, org, cn, us, uk... these would all have their own keys. China would only have access to one of those. As pointed out by others, the roots are pre-signed and just passed around for mirroring.

This doesn't prevent China from doing various nuisance activities such as replying with unresolvable, bogus unsigned answers, or bogus answers with wrong signers. That said, you'd at least have some level of verification available that a DNSSEC signed answer is appropriate, and you could ignore anything but.

DNSSEC. Get on it.