^ I don't mean to compare hacking with killing people, by the way. What I meant is that it should be pretty obvious, really, that the same actions would be classified in and treated in different ways depending on who the perpetrators are.

I mean, right?

Let's say a citizen, or many citizens, are shot. If it's done by another US citizen, it's murder, a crime, and not an 'act of war.' If it's done by some organization, it's homebrew terrorism. If it's done by another country, it's an act of war. That doesn't seem like a wholly unreasonable stance to hold, although it certainly can be debated, I guess.

I don't know, are these people going for the "That's a ridiculous stance on hacking, what are you gonna do, declare war on US?? How ludicrous! See, hacking is not an act of war" angle to this whole thing?

If so.....lulz.

How small?

Many numbers I've seen talk about writing continuously to the flash storage and only reaching the limit after years and years. The largest number I've seen is 51 years! If it hasn't practically reached a level of exceeding product lifetime, it will soon.

Oops, thanks.

Apparently it's not the Firefox developers that are stupid, it's me. Should have occurred to me earlier!

I just want a browser that starts up when I ask it to.

I don't want to start up a browser only to see a popup box asking me to update my extensions. And only after installing them, to start up.

Of course, this has been a thing with Firefox for a while if I recall. I migrated to Chrome almost by accident. It was never a conscious decision, I just got tired of that.

I never understood why Firefox extensions can't update in a different and more invisible way. Either completely invisibly (as Chrome updates are), or completely manually.

Makes it seem more like damage control than vetting candidates.

Wouldn't the state department want to know if an individual has issues dealing with confidential information?

If something like that comes up in a background check - i.e, posted links on facebook - it would be a good clue that the candidate should not be hired, at least according to these terms. (Never mind whether commenting on a big news story really means anything about ability to keep stuff secret)

But if candidates are specifically told "Don't do this, or you won't get a job", then their compliance with the suggestion no longer reflects their attitude towards confidential information in any way, just their level of stupidity. Or defiance, I guess. But not how good they will keep secrets.

In any case, it's being presented almost as a vetting procedure to filter out unwanted candidates, but the goal seems to really be trying to stop people from talking about it in general. And who can blame them. Although I think that's a losing battle.