> So he admits Chrome is broken, so he doesn't fix it and blames the CA's . . makes sense.

If the CAs' blacklists worked reliably, then chrome wouldn't need to ignore when they were down. So it is the CAs' fault.

If the exploit works by the user viewing a web page, an exploit which requires the user to view the web page for 3 seconds is significantly more powerful than an exploit which requires the user to view the web page for an hour.

I know that the exploits are more proff of concept, and that the hour long exploit may (or may not) be capable of running faster. But time to exploit is still not totally irrellevant.

All programs and drivers will continue to come with 32 bit versions for a long time. If your computer has XP on it, then it is presumably so old that it doesn't have more than 4GB RAM, so most normal people don't need 64bit.

> Should be pretty interesting to see where it ends up.

This is Newtonian mechanics. We can calculate where it ends up pretty accurately.

> Only the regional NICs have run out of blocks to distribute. No one has actually run out of IPv4 addresses.

APNIC is the only NIC which has run out of IPv4 adresses, on 14 April 2011. Surely there have been an ISP somewhere in Asia since then who wanted to use an IPv4 address, but haven't been able to. That should qualify as running out.

> Seriously, you're going to bicker over semantics?

The grandparent's post was about the semantics of "overdose", and he got a +5 informative for it. Saying

> Overdose isn't when you take more then prescribed, it's when you take more then what your body can handle.

is a semantic argument. So why shouldn't I point out that he is wrong.

> Overdose isn't when you take more then prescribed, it's when you take more then what your body can handle.

According to Wikipedia, an overdose "describes the ingestion or application of a drug or other substance in quantities greater than are recommended[1] or generally practiced.[2]"

So your use of the word is incorrect.

> Then we get wankers like you who bitch and bitch and bitch about how Slashdot should editorialize and sensationalize their summaries.

How is stating the obvious to "editorialize and sensationalize"?

How can anybody (fx Slashdot) would describe 99.51% voting for United Russia in Chechnya as "hint at fraud" instead of the more correct "unambiguous evidence of fraud"? Is Slashdot owned by the Russian dictatorship?

If the Bible was judged purely on its contents, in the same way as other books, then it would require quite a warning label.