I was just reading some posts from a guy whose job is building electronics which operate in a vacuum. As in, that's what he does all day. His first #1 tip for building electronics to be used in a vacuum is...
1) Don't use lead-free solder. Vacuum promotes the growth of whiskers, so lead-free solder always ended up with whiskers for us.
I'll take it from the person who does this for a living.
The best use of 3D "effects" I've seen is one of the Spiderman rides. You're in a roller coaster like car traveling through a building. It blends actual motion, live action, and 3D film all together in ways where you don't know for sure what's real and what's projected. At one point you fall, you're dropping down 100 feet or so. I haven't been able to figure out how far you actually fall, if at all. I *think* it's a real roller coaster drop, a significant distance, enhanced by 3D video of scenery going past to make it feel like you fell twice as far. Or maybe you don't actually fall at all. I can't tell if it's real or just effects, and that's pretty cool.
> I've seen so far (which I admit isn't much) never looked natural, it looked gimmicky.
I've seen some really gimmicky, some a bit forced, some good, and just a couple of good gimmicks.
Some stuff isn't a movie, shot in 3D, it is a bunch of "oh cool, 3D" scenes stitched together and they call it a movie. I've seen some that wasn't as gimmicky, but just as they insert sex and cleavage into movies for no apparent reason, they randomly stick in a couple of 3D "effects". Then I've seen a couple that were decent movies, shot in 3D, without "featuring" 3D. Just as filmmakers no longer exaggerate color just because they can, a few don't do exaggerated 3D shots just because they can.
A separate genre are the short ones where you're flying through the Grand Canyon or you're on a roller coaster or something often seen at Imax. It's all about the 3D, Surround Sound, Imax experience, no pretense of a story. I enjoy some of those. I guess it's similar to how I don't care for random sex scenes interrupting a movie, but I don't mind a good porn every so often, for a few minutes.;)
> I think it's because it doesn't help to tell stories. > But if you are tempted to use it to "make the image more realistic" then maybe you just don't have a good story to tell in the first place.
Color TV is to "make the image more realistic". Color isn't needed to tell the story. Yet nobody wants to buy black and white. Color is all anyone makes, nobody shoots TV or movies in black-and-white. The problem with 3D is the glasses - without the glasses, 3D would be a nice enhancement, much like color.
As someone else said, Zuck's always been an asshole, long before he had money. In this case, the headline is utter bull, Zuck's doing something else assholish today, but the legal proceeding isn't what the headline claims.
As the article says, there are four half-acre parcels, owned by more than 300 descendants of the people who lived there 150 years ago. That is, each little parcel has about 80 owners, several of unknown whereabouts.
There's no chance anybody is going to track down all 300 descendants and get them to all agree on *anything* - selling or anything else. So the land sits there, of no use to anyone. The legal filing allows Zuck to pay the 300+ descendants for land they probably didn't know they had any ownership interest in, and weren't making any use of.
Why does it matter to him? It doesn't matter much, but consider if you owned a big house, but someone else owned the medicine cabinet in the bathroom, and had the right to come in to the house to get to their medicine cabinet. That of course affects resale value, and it's just weird.
Yeah, I see how it could look like that. There is of course a slight relationship - I just crashed a plane that's 2 feet long and lands at 10 MPH. I don't imagine there is any 200 foot plane that lands at 10MPH, though there are some small models that fly fast
> The plane's length and its landing speed aren't necessarily equal.
Yeah I wasn't saying they were.
> That said, it's amusing that the first plane I looked upâ"the 767â"the landing speed is up to 199 MPH, and that does just happen to equate to almost exactly half a second.:-)
The 777 is also about the same speed, so half a second to travel 150 feet.
Pilots are supposed to be *prepared* to take over, but a class IIIb system can land the plane in zero visibility. Well, *technically* it's not supposed to be zero, but the plane is 200 feet long and you're supposed to have 150 feet of visibility. In other words, you can see only half a second in front of you. Some autopilot systems can pretty much fly the plane without pilot input - much more so than Tesla's system. Heck even on a DJI (toy), the autopilot can take off, fly to preset waypoints, come back, and land. The operator is supposed to be watching as it does this.
With Air France flight 447, it seems to me the crew a) didn't know how to fly the plane with conflicting airspeed indicators and b) didn't communicate with each other - at one point the POC and the co-pilot each thought they were flying the plane. Also, the stall warning turning *off* due to an extreme stall was a problem. I'm not sure that the autopilot had much to do with any of that. Given the conflicting readings, nobody was able to fly the plane properly - not the pilot-in-command, not the copilot, and not the autopilot.
> But don't you think it's interesting that historically Apple products have cost more in the UK than in the US even after taking VAT into account.
Not really, at least not "interesting" in any kind of mysterious way. Transportation costs are different, taxes are higher in the UK, etc. Since the US tax structure is different from every other country, technically Apple is supposed to pay taxes on UK revenue in both the UK AND the US. So just The tax differences alone could easily make a 10% difference in the total price paid (separate from being included vs being added in the advertised price).
The stuff the government pays for isn't "free", I'm not surprised it costs money.
> It seems that currency moves only cause Apply to raise prices, not to lower them.
Yeah nominal prices tend to go up over time, not down. That's inflation, and it's much better than the alternative, deflation. In theory, Apple could reduce prices on Tuesday due to exchange rates, after increasing them on Monday due to inflation, but that would be a bit silly since you end up with the same price by neither increasing it on Monday nor decreasing it on Tuesday. Instead, most retailers periodically increase nominal prices to reflect current costs, including inflation and all other factors.
> Once these corrections take place, what then? Is Apple going to revise their policy once more?
That'll depend on what else has happened and is expected to happen, assuming Apple prices according to established best practice.
Typically, when the price is highly visible to the consumer, certain price points work best: 0.99, 1.49, etc. You don't price an app or a hamburger at 1.82. To achieve that, you "bundle" your price increases. You don't increase the price by 4% because X, then later increase it 2% because Y, you change the price less often, to the next marketing increment.
When the minimum wage was increased 20%, all the fast food places needed to increase prices by 10% to compensate. They didn't change the price of fries from.99 to 1.09, though, fast food prices all went up 25% and stayed there even as gas prices (and therefore the restaurants costs for everything delivered to them) increased.
If Apple's *total costs* decrease by 25%, including forex changes and risks, they should drop the price. If their forex improves by only 6%, they should hold onto that to cover the increased cost of whatever cost went up, or is about to go up.
There are two issues at play here. It might be interesting to do an a-b specifically for prices that change day to day versus that magic 0.99 price point which has been tested and proven over and over again.
Not having done forex, my guess is that *most* of the time, the major currencies would drift within a few percentage points of each other week to week, so sticking with 0.99 would work better than 1.02 one day, 1.01 the next, then 0.98. 1 is psychological cut-off, going above that reduces sales.
I would further think that occasionally, major events such as Brexit may lead to wider differences. If significant lasting changes only happen every few years, it may make sense to include those in the price adjustments that companies already do every few years anyway.
Might make an interesting study that a major company would consider funding.
I should clarify my comment, on some purchases, for customers in some states, the company adds tax, generally around 8%. So US customers pay 99 cents PLUS tax.
When the company collects VAT, it's INCLUDED in the sticker price - it's illegal in the UK, I understand, to show customers who they are really paying by listing it as "+0.80 purchase price plus VAT".
Anyway, after the currency conversion, the company is charging the same amount. The extra that UK customers pay is the government charging higher taxes.
If you want to know whether Kim Dotcom is guilty, look at his license plate.
Mega was designed for, and heavily advertised, unlawfully uploaded videos. The owners actually unlawfully uploaded copyright-protected content themselves, and discussed a reward system to get people to unlawfully upload more infringing material. Mega was a service designed and operated for illegal activity.
Youtube is a place for cat videos.
Someone *could* have used Mega for some legal activity, just as they *could* use a pipe bomb in a legal way. However, if you sell online "pipe bomb kit for anarchists - fight back against the government", you'll rightfully end up in handcuffs.
> This is the real cause of all those last second "disasters", like the blue screen of death at the Microsoft big reveal of a version of Windows some years back.
I don't know the cause of that example, but it's powerful example. I did something similar once and lost a new account that would have doubled our revenue.
Some people try to cleverly figure out what to say to each person about each situation, coming up with different lies and half-truths. Sometimes that works well for them, sometimes it blows up in their face. It's a bit of a crap shoot.
Other people figure honesty is the best *policy*, a long-term principle you stick to in almost all situations, knowing that in the long term, it works well. *Being* a liar doesn't work as well as being an honest person, they figure (and they're not wrong).
In my particular case, I have two additional reasons to *try* to be honest all the time. One, I tend to do things in the extreme. If I decide to be a liar and a thief, I'm probably going to be a big fat liar and steal well over the felony threshold. Secondly, my career is in security. 40 hours a week, I show banks and other institutions how hackers can exploit theirb systems. I study multi-million dollar hacks and thefts, because that's my job. I *know* how to steal a million dollars, I *tend* to go big in everything I do - if I decide to become a thief I might well end up in Leavenworth, not in county jail.
Trump likes to brag about his wealth and his deals, no doubt doubt about that, and his "co-author" (who did all the writing) knows that spinning it even bigger than what Trump said sells more books. So yeah the numbers in book, written in 2007 based on what Trump said in 2006, were likely exaggerated, or at least "best case" gross margin.
Seven years later, when appealing a tax assessment in 2014, his accountant would have done the opposite - figured every possible deduction, including travel costs for Trump (in his 737). Taxable net income and gross margin are two very, very different things.
Off the top of my head, I know of two cases prosecuted in the 12 months before the Clinton announcement. One Navy sailor was prosecuted for taking a selfie aboard ship, and is currently incarcerated. US Navy ships are classified.
Brian Nishimura didn't instruct others to unlawfully remove classification markings in order to obscure his action of carrying classified information on a personal device, but he too was prosecuted.
Keep in mind when you hear Hillary or one of her team defend her illegal actions by saying "X never", or "always Y", or "I didn't Z", she's not a reliable source. She's an attorney defending someome, and she's the accused - her claims that "nobody is ever prosecuted", or any other claims, can't be taken at face value.
Red Hat Linux and CentOS require at least 200MB of disk space. The smaller Pi option has 20 times that. It can hold 20 separate installations of Linux. Often, that's enough. When it's not, use an SD card.
Looking at it another way, for some projects I choose between an Arduino and a Pi. If it's too big for the Arduino, I use a Pi. Some projects are borderline, things that *could* be done with an Arduino, but it would be a stretch. The Arduino 32K-256K of storage. So the Pi has several thousand times as much.
I've had the Black's definition and various cases on what constitutes negligence memorized for 25 years now, so let me just recite it for you.
Negligence: failure to exercise the degree of care expected of a person of ordinary prudence in like circumstances
"Extremely careless" is roughly equivalent to "gross negligence", defined as " a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty". By instructing subordinates to remove the "classified" markings before sending her the documents, Mrs. Clinton demonstrated her conduct was not a mere error, but a "conscious, voluntary disregard of a legal duty" to protect the information.
Your statement of "fact" is utterly false, and would be meaningless if it were true.
Mac OS X, Mac iOS, several versions of Windows, several Linux distributions each have more CVEs than Android. Android is in fact #17 on the list of most vulnerabilities (in other words, it's among the most secure popular operating systems, by CVE count).
However, counting the number of reported vulnerabilities is utterly bogus. One day we got a CVE for Linux which was essentially "by running 'ls/*/*/*/*/*/*' a local user can use up a chunk of their resource allotment. By doing so in a hundred shells at once, they can DOS themselves". That's a pretty stupid, CVE, IMHO, but okay, we put it in our database as an informational. The same day, there was a CVE for Windows remote code execution - an attacker can run whatever code they want, over the network.
So each of these is one vulnerability:
On my own Linux machine, I can use the CPU time allotted to me.
From here, I can connect to your Windows machine over the internet and delete all your stuff.
Counting those as equal would be just stupid, so "number of vulnerabilities reported" doesn't at all mean a lower count is safer. In fact, there is a significant element that is the opposite: where some software is closely inspected and any behavior that's at all interesting is documented, that system is likely safer than one where only the most egregious security holes are documented. If "omg a local user can choose to waste the resources assigned to them" is considered a vulnerability worth documenting by Linux standards, that may mean Linux is pretty safe - people are documenting even the most minor non-issues because they aren't finding b significant issues.
Probably a typo, you listed it backwards. GET is cacheable, POST is not, by definition.
GET puts the parameters in the URL specifically so that a cache can return the proper resource based on the URL - users.doc?page=2 will return the second page of users.
POST *creates* something on the server or otherwise alters it, so just returning a cached response without sending the post to the origin isn't the same at all. You can't cache create_user.do, you actually have to send the command to the server each time you want to create a user.
Slashdot Mirror
I was just reading some posts from a guy whose job is building electronics which operate in a vacuum. As in, that's what he does all day. His first #1 tip for building electronics to be used in a vacuum is ...
1) Don't use lead-free solder. Vacuum promotes the growth of whiskers, so lead-free solder always ended up with whiskers for us.
I'll take it from the person who does this for a living.
Your post brings to mind a question I was pondering the other day, which may have useful implications.
Other than the battery, would low pressure damage the components typically used in smartphones? I'm thinking around 2 Kpa or so.
The best use of 3D "effects" I've seen is one of the Spiderman rides. You're in a roller coaster like car traveling through a building. It blends actual motion, live action, and 3D film all together in ways where you don't know for sure what's real and what's projected. At one point you fall, you're dropping down 100 feet or so. I haven't been able to figure out how far you actually fall, if at all. I *think* it's a real roller coaster drop, a significant distance, enhanced by 3D video of scenery going past to make it feel like you fell twice as far. Or maybe you don't actually fall at all. I can't tell if it's real or just effects, and that's pretty cool.
> I've seen so far (which I admit isn't much) never looked natural, it looked gimmicky.
I've seen some really gimmicky, some a bit forced, some good, and just a couple of good gimmicks.
Some stuff isn't a movie, shot in 3D, it is a bunch of "oh cool, 3D" scenes stitched together and they call it a movie. I've seen some that wasn't as gimmicky, but just as they insert sex and cleavage into movies for no apparent reason, they randomly stick in a couple of 3D "effects". Then I've seen a couple that were decent movies, shot in 3D, without "featuring" 3D. Just as filmmakers no longer exaggerate color just because they can, a few don't do exaggerated 3D shots just because they can.
A separate genre are the short ones where you're flying through the Grand Canyon or you're on a roller coaster or something often seen at Imax. It's all about the 3D, Surround Sound, Imax experience, no pretense of a story. I enjoy some of those. I guess it's similar to how I don't care for random sex scenes interrupting a movie, but I don't mind a good porn every so often, for a few minutes. ;)
> I think it's because it doesn't help to tell stories.
> But if you are tempted to use it to "make the image more realistic" then maybe you just don't have a good story to tell in the first place.
Color TV is to "make the image more realistic". Color isn't needed to tell the story. Yet nobody wants to buy black and white. Color is all anyone makes, nobody shoots TV or movies in black-and-white. The problem with 3D is the glasses - without the glasses, 3D would be a nice enhancement, much like color.
As someone else said, Zuck's always been an asshole, long before he had money. In this case, the headline is utter bull, Zuck's doing something else assholish today, but the legal proceeding isn't what the headline claims.
As the article says, there are four half-acre parcels, owned by more than 300 descendants of the people who lived there 150 years ago. That is, each little parcel has about 80 owners, several of unknown whereabouts.
There's no chance anybody is going to track down all 300 descendants and get them to all agree on *anything* - selling or anything else. So the land sits there, of no use to anyone. The legal filing allows Zuck to pay the 300+ descendants for land they probably didn't know they had any ownership interest in, and weren't making any use of.
Why does it matter to him? It doesn't matter much, but consider if you owned a big house, but someone else owned the medicine cabinet in the bathroom, and had the right to come in to the house to get to their medicine cabinet. That of course affects resale value, and it's just weird.
Yeah, I see how it could look like that. There is of course a slight relationship - I just crashed a plane that's 2 feet long and lands at 10 MPH. I don't imagine there is any 200 foot plane that lands at 10MPH, though there are some small models that fly fast
> The plane's length and its landing speed aren't necessarily equal.
Yeah I wasn't saying they were.
> That said, it's amusing that the first plane I looked upâ"the 767â"the landing speed is up to 199 MPH, and that does just happen to equate to almost exactly half a second. :-)
The 777 is also about the same speed, so half a second to travel 150 feet.
> People misunderstand what an autopilot does.
Pilots are supposed to be *prepared* to take over, but a class IIIb system can land the plane in zero visibility. Well, *technically* it's not supposed to be zero, but the plane is 200 feet long and you're supposed to have 150 feet of visibility. In other words, you can see only half a second in front of you. Some autopilot systems can pretty much fly the plane without pilot input - much more so than Tesla's system. Heck even on a DJI (toy), the autopilot can take off, fly to preset waypoints, come back, and land. The operator is supposed to be watching as it does this.
With Air France flight 447, it seems to me the crew a) didn't know how to fly the plane with conflicting airspeed indicators and b) didn't communicate with each other - at one point the POC and the co-pilot each thought they were flying the plane. Also, the stall warning turning *off* due to an extreme stall was a problem. I'm not sure that the autopilot had much to do with any of that. Given the conflicting readings, nobody was able to fly the plane properly - not the pilot-in-command, not the copilot, and not the autopilot.
> But don't you think it's interesting that historically Apple products have cost more in the UK than in the US even after taking VAT into account.
Not really, at least not "interesting" in any kind of mysterious way. Transportation costs are different, taxes are higher in the UK, etc. Since the US tax structure is different from every other country, technically Apple is supposed to pay taxes on UK revenue in both the UK AND the US. So just The tax differences alone could easily make a 10% difference in the total price paid (separate from being included vs being added in the advertised price).
The stuff the government pays for isn't "free", I'm not surprised it costs money.
> It seems that currency moves only cause Apply to raise prices, not to lower them.
Yeah nominal prices tend to go up over time, not down. That's inflation, and it's much better than the alternative, deflation. In theory, Apple could reduce prices on Tuesday due to exchange rates, after increasing them on Monday due to inflation, but that would be a bit silly since you end up with the same price by neither increasing it on Monday nor decreasing it on Tuesday. Instead, most retailers periodically increase nominal prices to reflect current costs, including inflation and all other factors.
> Once these corrections take place, what then? Is Apple going to revise their policy once more?
That'll depend on what else has happened and is expected to happen, assuming Apple prices according to established best practice.
Typically, when the price is highly visible to the consumer, certain price points work best: 0.99, 1.49, etc. You don't price an app or a hamburger at 1.82. To achieve that, you "bundle" your price increases. You don't increase the price by 4% because X, then later increase it 2% because Y, you change the price less often, to the next marketing increment.
When the minimum wage was increased 20%, all the fast food places needed to increase prices by 10% to compensate. They didn't change the price of fries from .99 to 1.09, though, fast food prices all went up 25% and stayed there even as gas prices (and therefore the restaurants costs for everything delivered to them) increased.
If Apple's *total costs* decrease by 25%, including forex changes and risks, they should drop the price. If their forex improves by only 6%, they should hold onto that to cover the increased cost of whatever cost went up, or is about to go up.
There are two issues at play here. It might be interesting to do an a-b specifically for prices that change day to day versus that magic 0.99 price point which has been tested and proven over and over again.
Not having done forex, my guess is that *most* of the time, the major currencies would drift within a few percentage points of each other week to week, so sticking with 0.99 would work better than 1.02 one day, 1.01 the next, then 0.98. 1 is psychological cut-off, going above that reduces sales.
I would further think that occasionally, major events such as Brexit may lead to wider differences. If significant lasting changes only happen every few years, it may make sense to include those in the price adjustments that companies already do every few years anyway.
Might make an interesting study that a major company would consider funding.
I should clarify my comment, on some purchases, for customers in some states, the company adds tax, generally around 8%. So US customers pay 99 cents PLUS tax.
When the company collects VAT, it's INCLUDED in the sticker price - it's illegal in the UK, I understand, to show customers who they are really paying by listing it as "+0.80 purchase price plus VAT".
Anyway, after the currency conversion, the company is charging the same amount. The extra that UK customers pay is the government charging higher taxes.
1 GBP - 20% VAT = 0.8GBP = 1USD
Apple and the developer get the same amount of money in each country. In GB, you also pay the government too.
If you want to know whether Kim Dotcom is guilty, look at his license plate.
Mega was designed for, and heavily advertised, unlawfully uploaded videos. The owners actually unlawfully uploaded copyright-protected content themselves, and discussed a reward system to get people to unlawfully upload more infringing material. Mega was a service designed and operated for illegal activity.
Youtube is a place for cat videos.
Someone *could* have used Mega for some legal activity, just as they *could* use a pipe bomb in a legal way. However, if you sell online "pipe bomb kit for anarchists - fight back against the government", you'll rightfully end up in handcuffs.
> This is the real cause of all those last second "disasters", like the blue screen of death at the Microsoft big reveal of a version of Windows some years back.
I don't know the cause of that example, but it's powerful example. I did something similar once and lost a new account that would have doubled our revenue.
Some people try to cleverly figure out what to say to each person about each situation, coming up with different lies and half-truths. Sometimes that works well for them, sometimes it blows up in their face. It's a bit of a crap shoot.
Other people figure honesty is the best *policy*, a long-term principle you stick to in almost all situations, knowing that in the long term, it works well. *Being* a liar doesn't work as well as being an honest person, they figure (and they're not wrong).
In my particular case, I have two additional reasons to *try* to be honest all the time. One, I tend to do things in the extreme. If I decide to be a liar and a thief, I'm probably going to be a big fat liar and steal well over the felony threshold. Secondly, my career is in security. 40 hours a week, I show banks and other institutions how hackers can exploit theirb systems. I study multi-million dollar hacks and thefts, because that's my job. I *know* how to steal a million dollars, I *tend* to go big in everything I do - if I decide to become a thief I might well end up in Leavenworth, not in county jail.
Trump likes to brag about his wealth and his deals, no doubt doubt about that, and his "co-author" (who did all the writing) knows that spinning it even bigger than what Trump said sells more books. So yeah the numbers in book, written in 2007 based on what Trump said in 2006, were likely exaggerated, or at least "best case" gross margin.
Seven years later, when appealing a tax assessment in 2014, his accountant would have done the opposite - figured every possible deduction, including travel costs for Trump (in his 737). Taxable net income and gross margin are two very, very different things.
Off the top of my head, I know of two cases prosecuted in the 12 months before the Clinton announcement. One Navy sailor was prosecuted for taking a selfie aboard ship, and is currently incarcerated. US Navy ships are classified.
Brian Nishimura didn't instruct others to unlawfully remove classification markings in order to obscure his action of carrying classified information on a personal device, but he too was prosecuted.
Keep in mind when you hear Hillary or one of her team defend her illegal actions by saying "X never", or "always Y", or "I didn't Z", she's not a reliable source. She's an attorney defending someome, and she's the accused - her claims that "nobody is ever prosecuted", or any other claims, can't be taken at face value.
Red Hat Linux and CentOS require at least 200MB of disk space. The smaller Pi option has 20 times that. It can hold 20 separate installations of Linux. Often, that's enough. When it's not, use an SD card.
Looking at it another way, for some projects I choose between an Arduino and a Pi. If it's too big for the Arduino, I use a Pi. Some projects are borderline, things that *could* be done with an Arduino, but it would be a stretch. The Arduino 32K-256K of storage. So the Pi has several thousand times as much.
I've had the Black's definition and various cases on what constitutes negligence memorized for 25 years now, so let me just recite it for you.
Negligence:
failure to exercise the degree of care expected of a person of ordinary prudence in like circumstances
"Extremely careless" is roughly equivalent to "gross negligence", defined as " a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty". By instructing subordinates to remove the "classified" markings before sending her the documents, Mrs. Clinton demonstrated her conduct was not a mere error, but a "conscious, voluntary disregard of a legal duty" to protect the information.
Those numbers for malicious and questionable apps are interesting, thanks.
Actually the exact same source cited by your Bleeping Computer article.
https://www.cvedetails.com/top...
Which is largely a list of "most popular software", of course. The numbers in that list are approximately meaningless.
Your statement of "fact" is utterly false, and would be meaningless if it were true.
Mac OS X, Mac iOS, several versions of Windows, several Linux distributions each have more CVEs than Android. Android is in fact #17 on the list of most vulnerabilities (in other words, it's among the most secure popular operating systems, by CVE count).
However, counting the number of reported vulnerabilities is utterly bogus. One day we got a CVE for Linux which was essentially "by running 'ls /*/*/*/*/*/*' a local user can use up a chunk of their resource allotment. By doing so in a hundred shells at once, they can DOS themselves". That's a pretty stupid, CVE, IMHO, but okay, we put it in our database as an informational. The same day, there was a CVE for Windows remote code execution - an attacker can run whatever code they want, over the network.
So each of these is one vulnerability:
On my own Linux machine, I can use the CPU time allotted to me.
From here, I can connect to your Windows machine over the internet and delete all your stuff.
Counting those as equal would be just stupid, so "number of vulnerabilities reported" doesn't at all mean a lower count is safer. In fact, there is a significant element that is the opposite: where some software is closely inspected and any behavior that's at all interesting is documented, that system is likely safer than one where only the most egregious security holes are documented. If "omg a local user can choose to waste the resources assigned to them" is considered a vulnerability worth documenting by Linux standards, that may mean Linux is pretty safe - people are documenting even the most minor non-issues because they aren't finding b significant issues.
Probably a typo, you listed it backwards. GET is cacheable, POST is not, by definition.
GET puts the parameters in the URL specifically so that a cache can return the proper resource based on the URL - users.doc?page=2 will return the second page of users.
POST *creates* something on the server or otherwise alters it, so just returning a cached response without sending the post to the origin isn't the same at all. You can't cache create_user.do, you actually have to send the command to the server each time you want to create a user.