I find it ironic that you say Microsoft should not try to be Apple and talk about how old-fashioned it is to release service packs, when in fact that's how Apple does OS updates. Apple tends to release large updates to OS X all together (10.x.y releases) rather than a lot of smaller updates with individual security and bug fixes and so forth.

Also, given how player and coaching rosters vary from year to year, the teams taking the field can change radically between meetings.

This is one of the most important points here. Maybe the '78 Broncos beat the Seahawks, but that has absolutely no bearing on a game almost 4 decades later.

I agree with you. Otherwise, please ignore this comment. I accidentally downmodded you, and I don't know of any way to undo the moderation. Thanks, Slashdot.

You're probably making a joke, but to be clear Backup Day is March 31, the day before April Fools' Day (don't be a fool with your data, etc. etc.). It just happens to fall on the same day as Easter this year.

Yes, this is one of the reasons why DNSSEC holds such promise. It doesn't even need new records or extensions. The CERT, IPSECKEY, and SSHFP (source) records have existed for years but haven't been used since they weren't really useful before DNS was secure. Those three can be used to secure nearly anything you might want, with CERT being the catch-all record that can store web, email, or any other certificate. Since DNS is the system that is charged with knowing who a name is, it makes a lot of sense to put the trust there in a single place, rather than the large number of certificate authorities that it seems are not always trustworthy.

Perhaps you were already alluding to this, but that is exactly why DNSSEC is such a great idea. The trust of a site being who they say they are belongs in the DNS, since that's the system which is actually responsible for knowing. There are already records that exist to store such things: CERT and SSHFP records can secure web sites, email, and SSH, and with secure DNS such things can actually be useful. Just recently .com became signed, so now all three major TLDs (.com, .net, and .org) are signed, and several others are besides (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains). Once this becomes widely deployed it could significantly improve some issues of trust on the Internet.

You're contradicting yourself. If the Sievert already has units of a rate (J/s), then the 400 mSv per hour you mention is a double rate (energy/time^2), some kind of energetic acceleration, which doesn't make sense here. Your second paragraph is correct, but it contradicts your first.

As others have noted, the units for a Sievert are J/kg, not J/s. This is a very important distinction. An accumulated does requires these units, as J/s is a rate, and then you have to know how long a person is exposed, i.e. there is no accumulation. An accumulated dose implies that if you receive 1 mSv, that is all one needs to know: there is no time scale involved. It is a certain amount of total radiation received. Correcting your first paragraph, 1 Sv received in 1 second is (approximately) the same as 1 Sv received in 1000 seconds and as 1 Sv received in one million seconds. Sieverts are therefore a useful measure for directly determining the effects the radiation will have on a person.

So in fact Randall's image is accurate, unless there is some minor error in it that hasn't yet been discovered. Given your own misunderstanding of the situation, I hope the press's confusion is a little less inexplicable. You still come to the correct conclusion, which they often do not, but sometimes, science is hard.