I see. Great explanation, thanks.

I don't grasp how this is supposed to be an insecurity. It seems like the summary is "It can see whatever you can see". If it were "It can see stuff you otherwise couldn't see" then it would seem like a security concern, but as it stands it appears to be working exactly as intended and advertised. What am I missing?

Heh, I have.

In fact it's nearly 3am now, so it would not be much of a stretch to say instead "I am".

Whereas I have played maybe 10 hours of computer games in the last 10 years.

I'm not sure what's behind all these complaints about slashdot lately, because I haven't seen anything untoward. But I'm still on firefox 2.0.20 here, rather than letting it auto-upgrade me to 3.x - which was frankly rather difficult (far more than it should have been). It took registry edits and all sorts to stop the upgrade, so why slashdot would make things work for browsers that next-to-nobody would use and not work for the versions everybody is on these days, is baffling.

How many have you sold? (I know that n > 4, based upon a quantitative survey of my bookcase.)

I surrender to your superior memory!

No, the guy is just plain wrong; they do not have any party affiliation.

[Citation needed]

The core purpose of the Trust that owns the paper is "To secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity: as a quality national newspaper without party affiliation"

Now you're just being ridiculous. It's a broadly leftist paper, yes, but Labour aren't the only leftists in town politically... in fact arguably they're not even leftist at all ;)

So tbh I would say the contemporary stereotype of a Guardian reader would be closer to a Lib Dem or Green voter.

I doubt very much you read the Guardian, based on that claim. Pretty laughable considering how much criticism they have published over the years.

Disclosure/disclaimer: yes, I read the Guardian often, and of the major papers I would say it's probably the best... but please don't assume I am a simple fanboy who trusts them soley with the truth. I frequently mix and match with other papers and of course other sources from other media.

Well that link doesn't really relate because it's talking about really alternative stuff like Linux and Opera and all that ;) whereas I was only talking about the relatively un-alternative Firefox on Windows. But yeah, you're right, it wasn't that many years ago - I didn't specify because I can't remember, but I think probably 4 or 5 years, certainly not as far back as 2002.

I'm not an expert and can't even be bothered to google for confirmation of my vague memories, but I'm pretty sure it can easily identify a nude. What it can't do is distinguish between, say, this and, well... you probably have your own bookmarks.

As the saying goes, obscenity is whatever gives a judge an erection.

I've used one of those exclusively with firefox since I first got online banking years ago.

Sometimes "unneccessary" rudeness and vulgarity really adds to a post.

This was one of those times.

Well said. I couldn't grasp that inclusion at all. "brought encryption to the masses" - not any masses I've ever seen. I work within the general technology/geek field (web dev) and even including every work-related email I've got from clients, colleagues, contractors, suppliers, peers etc, I think I can count the number of PGP signatures/keys I've encountered in my entire life on the fingers of one hand. As for the type of people more usually associated with "the masses" (computer-shy relatives, friends who did Arts degrees, etc), the count is thoroughly stuck on zero.

Note to those with fingers hovering on the downmod button: I'm not saying PGP shouldn't be widely used by "the masses", in principle I agree it'd be nice if it were; nor even that it's not fit to be used by "the masses" (too difficult or whatever). I am merely observing than in practice, in my experience it's simply not.

Yeah but "conquering the market" isn't such a sure thing when your viewers are "Easy come, easy go". I never watched much on youtube in the first place, to be honest, but now I watch even fewer, because nearly every time I try I get a "not in your country" message. Often as not, in anticipation of that message, I don't even bother following the link through to see. I guess driving away visitors like me is all part of their cunning master plan to lose less money.

Don't sweat it. The Telegraph is a paper aimed at people who love to try and pretend the UK is still the major imperial power it was in the 19th century, obviously they're going to... how do you say it... get their panties in a twist about some stupid shit like this. The Times is kind of similar but with added Murdoch evil. And the Sun is a joke of a tabloid. I don't think anybody normal looked at this "incident" and let it affect their view of the US or the POTUS.