Pathogens don't "learn". They evolve, ok. They adapt, ok. But they aren't sentient. They are not thinking. And especially they aren't thinking "hey, if they vaccinate, they won't die anyway, at least not as fast, so let's get more deadly!" This isn't the fucking Pandemic flash game for crying out loud!

There is no interest of killing a host for a parasite. It's an side effect. Unintended, and actually harmful for the parasite in the long run. Just like poisoning the seas is harmful for us. We ain't some comic book villain who does it for ... well, for being evil. We do it 'cause it cuts costs. The oil spill is only the side effect, not the reason we do it.

So yes, they COULD get more deadly because we don't die as fast and a more deadly mutated strain would kill itself off with the host if there was no vaccination. But that is hardly an argument against vaccination. It only means that at worst we're with vaccination where we are now without. AT WORST. If, and only if, the pathogens mutate in such a way that they get more deadly. Which is neither in their interest nor anything they would (evolutionary) strive for.

What's the benefit for a pathogen to be more deadly? Killing the host is actually bad for it, since that ends spreading (with this host at least).

I can dissolve that conspiracy theory: They are more afraid of someone finding a way to bypass their input sanitizers than losing money from hacks. So no characters are allowed that could possibly, remotely, be considered "active" or "command" characters in any language they could probably think of.

Also, most, if not all, of the hacks happen due to people getting their passwords stolen by trojans and the like rather than someone actually guessing the passwords.

Provided that we now know how your passwords are created, finding your password is essentially not harder or easier than before. From a technical point of view of course. Actually, it probably is much easier now considering that, since you probably rely on your creation algorithm to introduce enough entropy, you probably choose simpler passwords.

Given that most of these webpages are also the ones where you have to answer some "secret" question to recover your password, it's kinda moot to select a secure password.

What is it you say? "Instead of giving a real answer to the "secret" question, simply use another randomly generated string?"

That's a good idea. Until the admin of the page locks your account because "you obviously are a robot, because humans don't do this".

The problem runs far, far deeper, people...

Ultra mobile? I don't think I've ever seen it in that configuration. It's in the same space as Intel's Atom, but unlike the Atom, AMD doesn't try to artificially segment the market too much so you can actually buy one with enough SATA slots for a NAS.

LinkedIn was ever relevant? I've had a lot of spam from them (even though I never joined or gave them permission to contact me), but I'd never consider using them to find people to hire (or to find work, back when I was looking).

Define 'proper'. Re-randomisation after every fork()? Good luck with that. PLTs at random offsets? Sure, if you're willing to pay the overhead of not being able to share any position-independent code between processes.

Depends on the AMD chip. I have a box that serves as a NAS and HTPC with an AMD Fusion E-350, which is one of their lower-power chips. Maximum power consumption is 18W for the CPU and GPU. The GPU works fine for decoding HD video (on FreeBSD, presumably it's as good on Linux). It's now around 4-5 years old and the only reason that I'm considering replacing it is that the motherboard can only handle 8GB of RAM, which isn't enough for ZFS deduplication with a 12TB pool.

True, although most password managers can generate random passwords (of varying strengths, as a recent Oakland paper showed). Using this functionality is generally easier than thinking up a password.

JavaScript can also intercept the contents of the clipboard. If you're blocking password managers, then people are going to do one of two things. Either they'll pick a (weak) easy-to-remember password, or they'll use a password manager and paste the password in. If they opt for the latter, then any malicious ad on the page can grab the password while it's in the clipboard...

I think that you're slightly missing the grandparent's point. About 10-15 years ago, there were two groups pushing new directions for the web. One group, led mostly by the W3C (though backed by Apple and a few other big companies) wanted to completely separate content and presentation. You'd have a service that would provide structured XML and then a web page or a native app that would process it and present it to the user. This would make it easy to write programs that aggregated data from multiple sources (e.g. find bus, train and flight times and prices so that you can find out the cheapest or most convenient route from A to B, including getting to and from different airports).

The other faction, led by Google, wanted to completely destroy this separation and make web pages into rich web apps that would ensure that you could only view the content in exactly the form that the authors intended. The main goal of this was to make it hard to distinguish content from ads and therefore make it hard to automatically remove ads.

Unfortunately, the second group mostly won. The grandparent seems to want people to go back to the other approach and present machine-readable data feeds so that we can then have rich client-side apps that are agnostic to the source, but present the data as the user wants. I'd like that too.

The only problem is that you may forget to turn off blocking of whatever analytics spyware they're running, so they won't get feedback that you only stayed on the page for a few seconds before leaving the site.

It would be interesting what kind of money such a fundraiser can collect. Somehow I can see this getting a LOT of money.

I do have a lot of respect for the women (and men, let's not forget them) who provide a valuable service by selling professional aid in the area of satisfying one of the most powerful human urges.

But these people I'd certainly call prostitutes. Or maybe, if I have to skirt the issue, a "working girl/guy".

I would never dream of calling someone who actually has a decent job and provides a valuable service a hoe or a whore!

"I have here your son. He can be alive tomorrow provided you..."

That kind?