There's a reason I specifically called out getting rid of flash. Every legitimate website should be going to HTML5 if they aren't there already. There is no reason to be sticking with flash exclusively in 2015. It's vulnerable but at the same time doesn't give you anything you can't do in a more safe framework. It is a relic that needs to die sooner rather than later. If a website isn't switching over, you have to ask yourself why.

And yes, I know there is a huge code base for flash based games and the lot. But that's no reason to refuse to switch over to a better platform in the long term. It may take a while to move everything. But if they're not making the effort to move to a better, more secure platform I question their motives.

The trouble is, how do you identify where the malware comes from? Sifting through the outrageous numbers of ads on so many of the random click-bait web pages full of kitten videos linked to on Facebook is hard enough. Trying to nail down exactly which ad gave you the infection would be pretty much impossible. So there's no way to really know who to sue.

The only solution is to approach the internet like you would approach a lady of the evening. Don as much protection as you can before you interact because there's no telling what dangers lurk in the dark places. Because if you come away with an infection, there's nothing you can do but treat it as an afterthought.

Adblock+ by itself isn't enough. You need a script blocker, set up your browser to not accept third party cookies, and, most importantly, stop running flash.

Reason number 48372534786 why it's better just to universally block advertisements on the internet.

So you're trying to suggest they don't hire booth babes to be stared at?

Ah, the fond memories...

My favorite was always

Todd Wilkinson
1 Happy Street
Fryburg, CA

In other news, Pope found to actually be Catholic. The Pontiff was quoted as saying. "I always knew I was Catholic from when I was a little boy."

This just in. Massive government study shows bears do defecate in the woods. Head of the $65M (£43.6M) government funded study, Dr. Hans Schmidt, describes the study. "Ve always knew ze bears did zeir business somevere but ve were never sure vere zey did it. But now it is confirmed. Zey do zeir business in ze woods."

He's been a successful entrepreneur, no doubt. But he really doesn't have the background in actually building safety-critical systems to fully understand the complexity of the problem. Sorry but I'm going to go with actual engineers who have done the actual work instead of the flashy business guy with no real experience actually building it.

That being said, I'm 100% in favor of him putting resources into developing the technology. It's good that he has many engineers working on the problem because the long term benefits of the work will save countless lives. It's just that he's wrong about it being an easy task. It's hard and it's going to take a lot longer than he thinks.

Yeah, I added that thought in the follow up to the first response to my comment. If we can get fewer accidents per mile driven than we get now, it's a win. The more we reduce accidents the better. Which is why it's good to see accident reducing technology showing up in cars long before the cars actually drive themselves. And even if that's all we ever really get out of the effort to have self driving cars, we're still better off

If it happens like the evolution of safety in aircraft systems, you'll see horrendous crashes that kill people being the impetus behind recalls and safety upgrades. There's simply too many permutations for anyone to accurately predict a complete set of potential hazards, much less find a way to get a computer to identify them all and come up with a strategy to deal with them. There will be some combination of issues that causes a crash where people die and everyone who has ever worked on autonomous cars will say "I never thought of that".

That being said, autonomous cars don't have to be perfect to be a success. They can still have some accidents due to unforeseen combinations of problems. But If we can get autonomous cars to the point where they cause fewer accidents than humans, we're ahead of the game even if they aren't perfect. And given how poorly so many people drive, the bar is lower than it should be. Nevertheless, the more accidents we avoid, the better off we all are.