Forget the gasoline tank.

There's motor oil lubricating your engine. It's very flammable.

In fact, that's how car fires tend to start--spurting motor oil from cracked seals.

It's the opposite (sorta). The more you expand the shore of knowledge, the bigger the island of ignorance. The more we know and discover, the more we realize what we don't know and have yet to discover.

And then there's the ocean of information around the island that in the famous (paraphrased) words of Donald Rumsfeld, you don't know you don't know.

People keep trotting this out as if it was some horrible, boogeyman security practice.

Quite frankly, it's probably better than any other security solution. After all, humans have spent thousands of years working on physical locks, while electronic ones (like passwords) have only been around for a few decades. And, physical security is another legitimate layer of security. Sure somebody can break into your work place and grab your passwords. But they'd actually have to be physically there. And the cops are much more likely (and able) to respond to a physical break-in than to some virtual intruder entering virtual storage.

The worst thing that could happen would be to electronically store the passwords in plain text. You get neither physical nor electronic security. That should be discouraged.

That's easy. We'll just take away your sharks.

Sometimes, I wonder where the idea of putting comments at the bottom of an article comes from. It seems horribly inefficient from all perspectives except the commentator's, and a low barrier to commenting is counterproductive to any meaningful discourse.

Whatever happened to forums?

Slashdot's not a publication. It's a community with links to articles as topics of conversation.

The raison d'etre of publications is producing articles and other pieces of content. The raison d'etre of Slashdot is the community and the discourse of other people's content.

tl;dr: Without (an effective system for) comments there is no Slashdot.

Simple: It's a slow news day. Editors need something to rile up the troops to make their daily impression quotas.

ARE BELONG TO ME!

Stupidity is no excuse for doing bad things.

Which is to say, this stuff should be fail closed, not fail open.

Agreed. The "responsible" in responsible disclosure applies to both the researcher and the company. If the company is not responsible in their behavior towards the security hole, then there's no point in the researcher being responsible either.

Companies that have a bad track record of responsibility should have their security holes publicized immediately. After all, if they don't take their product's security seriously today, there's no reason to expect them to take their product's security seriously the next time around.

Even without an NDA, you'd be lucky if you didn't screw up somehow. Not only could you be revealing trade secrets, you could also misrepresent your company, or in the worst case, reveal insider financial or strategic information. Best to keep that line drawn, especially on a public forum.

By imperfectly mimicking the old Office GUI, the LibreOffice GUI (and UI in general) ended up falling into the uncanny valley. It sort of looks like MS Office, but because it differs in subtle ways both visually and behaviorially, it's off-putting.

If there's any OSS product that needs a UI redesign, it'd be LibreOffice. It'd be great if Mozilla could ship all their Firefox UI resources over, since it seems Firefox has so many choices they can't seem to decide which one to go with.

Guess who owns Columbia Pictures?

You got it: Sony.

It's yet another black mark for the company that can't seem to stop shitting all over their public image.

Maybe the more notable result of the study is that those who consider themselves moderate Republicans are easier to manipulate via selective informing. It explains the success of Fox News anyway.

You just increased your attack surface while offering marginal benefit. The increase in attack surface is certainly new.

You're also paying additional for it, both during purchase (to recoup the manufacturer's R&D investment and for the additional physical components), and then afterwards as part of the car's maintenance. The additional costs associated with the additional components is also new.