IIUC, the smaller a bubble is, the longer it lasts. This may have something to do with their calculated result. If so, this sounds pretty good.

Only thing is, I think this needs a bit more research:
What happens to fish, etc. who swim through these bubbles?
Does this change the rate at which gasses diffuse through water?
Does it affect the rate of evaporation? If so, what effect does that have?
Most of these can probably be answered fairly easily, and maybe they already have been. If not, they should be considered.

Perhaps Bruce Schneier was saying something different. It sounds like he was saying that you, personally, have no way to protect yourself from your employers shitty security practices. I still disagree with him, to an extent. If anyone read the emails on my business account the worst they would get would be terminal bordom. But if you're doing business with someone, you can't protect yourself against their shitty security practices...and you can't even tell that they have any without criminal liability. Credit card numbers lost because someone you did business with was hacked isn't something you can protect against.

I know that various different tyrants have claimed that to be true. That doesn't mean it ever was true. Politicians have always been liars. Dracula had it said about his kingdom, too, and there was a Persian Emperor who claimed that a virgin with a bag of gold could walk the entire lenght of the silk route unmolested. I never heard of one that tried.

I thought that was what histones were for. DNA that's wrapped can't be read, so you control what is wrapped to decide what is available for expression. And epigenetic tags freeze or thaw the wrapping. This requires sections of DNA that function as labels, but it doesn't directly control the folding (more accurately rolling into a cylinder) that's handled by the histones, and when they decide to roll it up is decided by what tags are attached to the labels.

If they're able to manufacture more robots, then it's life... but not as we know it.

Why stop there?

They should also add a spell checker and auto-correct to the file system driver just to make sure people haven't made any mistakes.

All the complexity you need to add is:

if (ch <= '\x1f') {
        goto FAIL;
}

How hard is that?

Germany was spending far more on their military during that time than Britain was. If Britain and France had stepped in earlier, Germany would have been totally unprepared and the war would have ended quickly. Not to mention all of the horrors of the Holocaust that would have been prevented.

If Britain and France had managed to delay the war to "prepare" even more, say a few years, the Luftwaffe would have been dominated by jets, German ballistic missiles would have been longer range and more precise, and they might even have become a nuclear power. I really don't think this is the analogy you're looking for.

There are a fair number of people out there who happily traded the 2-week battery life of their perfectly functional cell phones for dead-in-a-day smartphones. As it turns out, the inconvenience of having to constantly recharge a smartphone was worth putting up with in exchange for being able to do all the things you can do with a smartphone. Clearly, not everyone shared this sentiment, as you can still see any number of people using non-smartphones today--but significant numbers of people chose functionality over battery life.

It's hardly a stretch of the imagination to see the same thing happening with smart watches.

Which?

OK, if they'd thought of it they'd have wanted to do it. That's hardly proof they did it.

Don't worry. When the governments keep changing eventually you get a real winner at the head. I'm still expecting India and Pakistan, or some other pair of "friendly neighbors" to put the nuclear autumn model to the test. Unless something worse happens first. Hopefully, however, not this decade.

Threats are cheap. Is there even any evidence they come from the same source as the original hack? (Mind you, I have no idea who did it, and don't believe anything the government says anymore unless they have verifyable evidence to prove it.)

Now once someone *acts* on one of those threats, then there will be more belief that it was done with someone with either excessive zeal or lots of backing. Right now even that's lacking. Threats on the internet are so common that they've *got* to be ignored, even though that's frequently difficult.

They didn't purposely deceive people, because they didn't care whether it was true or not. If that had known their claims were false, that would have been purposeful deception. However they didn't care whether the claims were true or false, but only that they were useful That's probably a bit worse than intentional deception.