While P/NP is indeed pretty way offtopic here, P vs. NP doesn't necessarily apply solely to decision problems. Furthermore, many problems can be rephrased as decision problems; e.g. Does the cannonball need more than 10 second to complete its flight?

For a traditional P/NP example: the traveling salesman problem is about finding the shortest path, which is also not a decision problem.

Possibly relevant here (in some minor way) is that thinking in a foreign language allows people to be more rational.

Seriously, RTFM: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=744193

I don't think anyone's bothered to read the bugzilla case. Possibly including the idiot @ internetnews.com - seriously, I don't understand how you could possibly come to those conclusions based on that bugzilla case.

It's also a fictional summary designed to grab your attention rather than represent the truth.

In other shocking news, different platforms requiring different implementations of this rather non-critical feature don't get the feature exactly simultaneously. And here I was hoping they'd have quantum entangled programmers whose coding is either both done or not done.

This isn't a story.

According to KPN, the hacked website was not part of the CA's issuing system. Assuming they're being wholly truthful, this article is pure sensationalism: A company has a non-critical website that's hacked: whooptie.

Of course it's bad PR: it doesn't inspire confidence in their other security matters. However, its just as likely that they're concentrating on their actual business (managing certificates), and the site was an afterthought. In any case (maybe I'm just cynical) it doesn't surprise me that a very low traffic, low volume site is negligently secured.

Totally misleading headline.

The hacked machine seems unrelated to the actual CA business, though - it's just a website, not a CA management tool or whatever. Source: http://forum.kpn.com/t5/News-stream/UPDATE-11-30-KPN-sluit-tijdelijk-website-Gemnet/ba-p/8477

Yeah; people seem to have this idea that because FF will change versions several times a year that this mean they'll see the same amount of change and the same amount of plugin breakage several times a year they used to see just once every year or two.

Of course, that's nonsense - development speed won't go up by an order of magnitude; it's just a different (and better) way of packaging essentially the same changes.

I kinda hope they adopt something like chrome's auto-updater for an even less intrusive experience.

You're telling me people never use Chrome in the commercial world? Or, for that matter Windows? Or Firefox 3.6? Or really, anything? All of this big-attack-surface area stuff gets patched regularly, and if a client refuses to patch, they're generally on their own (or paying a lot for a custom solution).

Supposedly, the compatibility version string should be automatically updated in many cases: http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/04/13/add-ons-review-update-29/