"...they were told not to speak of it." And where did that order originate from? The article only indicates that it was the director of IT that told them that, but did anyone tell him to relate that order?

Honestly, first we need webmail clients to allow css rules instead of requiring us to use the style attribute instead. Thunderbird is one of the few that actually handles this well, but gmail is a pain in that ass.

My question is: Have they said whether they found useful information on the phone? (Not that I necessarily trust them to answer that truthfully at this stage.)

Why don't we have him be the human test subject in driverless car systems?

They were torn when choosing a name. It was either "Lootbook" or "Defacebook." Inasmuch as either choice opens them up to a lawsuit, the latter would really be inviting trouble.

How much of Bing's market share can be attributed to people who, if asked about what search engine they normally use, would not know how to answer correctly? "Search engine? I don't I just go to the internet."

While it is a little silly (for multiple reasons) to transcode ogg, in my experience, oggs look more like lossless codecs that just have a more finely tuned filter on low volume sounds. MP3 throws out the high frequency spectrum to lose data, where ogg just throws out low amplitude data. Image compression analogy: mp3 is like changing the image resolution, ogg is like the full scale original just with some of the dark sections set to #000000 instead of something like #010101.

Does anyone remember the outcry about civility in political discourse when Gabby Giffords was shot? Am I the only one who seems to recall that threatening to kill the president was considered a serious breach of conduct? I'm not trying to argue that we should all fall in line with what's going on in government. I'm just trying to ask: what happened to America that we lost all sense of civility when it comes to politics?

If there was ambiguity before (and I'm not saying there was), your suggestion does nothing to remove it. It could still be describing a situation where the diver's camera is (for some reason) being pointed out as a tool.

My point was that not only is the perceived ambiguity stupid but that there's almost no way to completely solve it. Language can be ambiguous at times, and there's not a whole lot anyone can do about it. Get over it.

If you see the headline as being ambiguous, how would you rewrite it to remove the ambiguity?

It sounds like you live in a climate where biking in the winter months isn't considerably dangerous.

For me, this lies within the uncanny valley.

It was never intended as a factual statement.

Marketing hated it because of what happened with Windows Me. [shudder]

The problem is actually that the internet/http was never designed for security. We've just managed to hack some semblance of security on top of it, but ultimately, it's always going to be insecure to some degree. If we really want a secure internet it will likely have to be redesigned from the ground up.