640KM range probably would be enough for anyone.

In fairness, it's no more unreliable than the 500million+ lines of code, claim. And somehow much more believable.

With encryption without authentication, many people will assume they gain some security when they are not.

Not at all. It would appear to the user like any non-TLS site does today - standard address bar, no padlock, nothing. What goes on in the background doesn't matter as far as the user is concerned. In fact, I'd be surprised if many users have even considered that their data is being sent plaintext on the majority of sites. Changing the background to be encrypted would be a good way to block a lot of passive surveillance without making users feel as though their entire online doings are protected without the padlock.

You've confused encryption with authentication. It doesn't need to be authenticated, the idea is to stop drive-by starbucks script kiddies, mass surveillance. Targeted attacks will always be an issue, even with strong, well auth'd encryption.

I hope that whatever HTTP2.0 ends up being enforces encryption by default.

Choosing not to include some feature in your product is exercising your freedom

Likewise, Choosing TO include some feature in your product is exercising your freedom. What's the issue?

Yes, Firefox is bundling in code to handle DRM, but you are never forced to use it. Firefox itself is not becoming DRM'd, in reality it's not entirely different to including proprietary CODEC support - you're free to use it if you want and free to ignore it if you don't want to use it. Ultimately, giving users a choice is the most freedom.

How else are people supposed to learn? Stepping through code line-by-line is an excellent way to learn what your code is actually doing. Everyone has to start somewhere. If someone has decades of experience and still works like this, then I have to ask why they're in that position? Who put them there? Why haven't they had performance reviews that highlight this weakness?

It seems that far too many rockstar developers can't fathom that not everyone knows absolutely every facet of development.

I do wonder what the future has in store for the humble CPU. With a huge market shift towards tablets and phones in the consumer area, where power savings are more important than raw oomph, as well as a similar shift in a good portion of the server market, are we starting to reach an era of CPU's being "good enough" for most people and performance to begin stagnating?

Hopefully some good competition between AMD and Intel will keep things fresh and fast.

I'm not making any assumptions, but you seem determined to make blanket statements.

For someone banging on about security, this statement is laughable:

A plugin would add no vulnerabilities.

Flash is a plugin.

So what you're saying is, Flash is a stupid idea because people have to install it, but a browser addon is a better idea because people have to install it.

As ridiculous as the meme is, I feel Dogecoin has done more for cryprocurrency acceptance and awareness in the last 5 months than Bitcoin has done in the last 5 years.

As I said, give me an alternative that is supported.

By all means, give me a better way to enable websockets on the majority of browsers out there. Flash is horrible, but most people have it installed and enabled. The same can't be said for much anything else.

Too bad you didn't read the summary properly: The flash object sits on the website, not the browser. The browser just runs it.
For this to work on a wide scale, you can't make everyone install a browser addon. That's just stupid and as bad as flash is, proprietary addons are worse.