In my experience, it won't.

I reported to a small non-profit that their list of email addresses had leaked. I knew this because I used a unique address when registering with the site and I later started getting SPAM at that address. It might not have been a hack that caused my address to leak, but, irrespective of the means by which my email address had leaked, there should have been an investigation.

I reported it to the CEO, who passed it to the IT head, who basically could not get his head around the idea that there might be a problem.

(e.g. "Hey, you might want to keep an eye on those Tsarnaev brothers -- see attached description of the stuff they were doing while they were still here in Russia.")

With my most elaborate tinfoil hat on, I wonder if the FBI delberately did not stop the Tsarnaev brothers.

In what field does one get more resources because you failed? Perhaps some people think that the price of the FBI having better tools (and the rest of us having less privacy) is the death of a small number of people at a high profile event?

Perhaps someone thinks that the price of stopping the next 9/11 plot is to let a smaller plot go ahead.

It works great.

For some phones. I have a rather old phone, but it wasn't the earliest phone to have NFC (that came a year earlier). Google Wallet doesn't work on it.

the songs I hear on Pandora are often ones I've never heard before. I've bought CD's based on its generated recommendations

I have "trained" Pandora such that it doesn't play anything new any more. However, in the process of "training", I did find quite a few new artists and bought CDs or MP3 downloads.

A google search of Lindsey Stone shows the images that she wanted to suppress, and lots of stories about her experience with her bad reputation.

It looks like anything done by reputation.com has been washed away by the more recent stories about her.

But a lot of people were able to make really important contributions to computer science and the war. What exactly makes Alan Turing a god, and not, say, Claude Shannon? Or Richard Feynman? Or Enrico Fermi?

Or Tommy Flowers -- the man who designed Colossus.

I mean, it's important and all, but there's different levels of issues. Heartbleed and shellshock are one thing- this is a sketchy manufacturer doing something sketchy.

Did you miss the part about how this software breaks the whole certifcate validation process? This is worse than Heartbeat for anyone who has an infected laptop. Any HTTPS website can masquerade as another HTTPS website and, because of the way Superfish works, the browser won't detect anything wrong.

Great question! I had wondered about this myself - How does C&P really make the card more secure if you still basically just need a photocopy of it to use it? Or do they have an entirely different mode of operation when used online (like easy generation of disposable one-use card numbers)?

If I want to send money from my UK bank account to a destination account that I haven't sent money to recently (using the bank's website), I have a little card reader that reads my card, validates the PIN (offline) and then processes a number from the website into a response that I put back into the web page to validate that I have the physical card and know the PIN.

On the back of your card is CHECK ID and it looks absolutely nothing like the signature on the piece of paper. What happens then?

The bank laughs at you and tells you that, because you were using the card without signing it, you are responsible for any losses.

The thing I don't like about it, is on the signature block on the back of the card I just write check id

Massive FAIL there, Psyko. If your card is ever stolen, instead of the CC company being responsible for losses you are!

Your next creditcard (in a couple years) will probably have a chip-and-pin system,

My Citibank card (issued a year or more ago) has a chip, but it's not a chip-and-pin card: it's chip-and-signature. That's right, push the card into a chip reader (not in the USA, naturally) and the machine prints out a form to sign.

I have a T-Mobile phone with Wi-Fi calling; it keeps turning the feature on by itself; and it sucks with dropped calls continually.

T-Mobile has had this service for years, and it used to work really well. In-call switching between cellular and WiFi, etc..

My current phone has the same feature, but I can set it to use the cell network if possible and only make calls over WiFi if the cell network isn't available. Because of this setting, I don't use the WiFi calling very much, but it is great for making and receiving calls while abroad without paying huge roaming fees.

Because all the "problems" you cite are generally overblown or not problems at all.

While that may be true, the same could be said for all the claimed advantages of systemd -- that they are overblown or not really advantages.

this will not have been done out of charity purposes. my guess is that MS gave something on the order of 2 billion dollars.

It's probably part of this deal

You can also do that with the systemd journal. Where's the problem?

That systemd's journaling log is not required for security, thus removing one more justification for the use of systemd.