Sounds like my case. Increasing couldn't get wear contacts any more without problems, hated all of the problems of glasses, was scared of the surgery... and it was just nothing. Seriously, how can instantly improved vision not be at the top of your to-do list?

Its perhaps misleading to say that NAT is security, but it undoubtedly provides security.

I can think of no technical reason that someone with access to dump the RAM would not get those registers; the RAM used in the CPU is much less volatile than normal DRAM (its called "static RAM" for a reason).

For example, lets say you manage to catch a VMWare vMotion. You have A) the RAM, B) the current CPU instructions, C) the CPU registers. Ditto with Fault Tolerance.

Lets say you ice the RAM and dump it. If you have access to do that, you could in theory do the same for the CPU; and since CPU memory decays like 1000x slower than DRAM, it would almost certainly be less corrupted than the RAM.

There WAS no 100% increase. The article misinterprets the graph, and the report that it references contradicts its analysis. IE rose from some ~130 vulns to some 140 vulns; thats not 100%, its like 5%.

Like Mugato, I feel like Im taking crazy pills here. Almost noone bothered to fact check the original report, but everyone has an opinion on it. Keep doing what you do, slashdot.

IE had fewer vulnerabilities last year than Chrome, or Firefox. This year it has more. Thats not a slam dunk, or an indication that IE is a dogs breakfast.

Ie has been substantially rewritten since the IE6 days, and is a sort-of-decent browser these days. These days its firefox thats the dogs breakfast; the only saving grace it has is its low userbase and its strong extension support that can plug some of the glaring holes (like its crappy 1-process architecture, its lack of sandboxing for anything, etc).

Infinity and infinitesimals are abstract concepts. They do not occur in reality by their very definition as neither can ever be reached.

Have you considered reading the article before criticizing someone else's analysis of it?

Apparently not.

Firefox was "more vulnerable" in 2013, and actually for several years post IE9, I believe it was generally considered LESS secure than MSIE due to its lack of common protections (like reduced privlege, sandboxing, etc).

The real surprise here is that people on a tech site continue to use awful metrics for judging things ("works for me", "everyone else hates it, must be bad").

Neither can IE. It has a ~5-10% increase.

The summary is absolute garbage; it implies that the number of vulnerabilities is doubled (it isnt), that IE security is worse (but public exploits are reduced from last year, and mean time to patch is vastly reduced), and that its always been worse (last year, Chrome and Firefox had more exploits than IE).

Unsurprisingly, everyone here took the bait.

Come and get me fuckers.

Only 1.5 TB and it will run on ANYTHING (with 8x8 core processors and 32GB of RAM). Of course it still comes in 24 different variations that all licensed differently.