Honestly, I am more concerned with the new ocean alert. A new ocean didn’t spawn out of nothingness. Taking away planets, adding oceans, seems like certain types of “scientists” are more concerned with relabeling established reality than actually making efforts towards discovery. In all honesty, there are a lot of unintelligent non-serious people in science and they are mostly blind to their innate non-scientific bias.

I find it both amusing and sad when I hear definitive proclamations regarding speculation related to complex systems like “the science is settled”, “science is absolute”, and “there is a scientific consensus” (all of which are unscientific by definition), and then out of the other side of their mouths they are basically implying they think all scientists before them were idiots who thought we had four oceans and nine planets. It sort of begs the question of how long it will be before the next generation will come along who consider these to be relative imbeciles.

For those who may be downvoting, my arguments are not against science as I am actually pro-science in my beliefs. My issue is with "scientists" who have allowed political ideology and other influences cloud their logic and conclusions. Science should always be driven by unfiltered logic towards discovery and progressing humankind forward, and conducted not with arrogance but with awe and wonder. Mathematics, chemistry, physics, engineering, etc. are all fields that I'm fascinated by where science is geared towards challenging the status quo and common knowledge to find evidence that might prove it false and to better define/explain the world around us. However, my attitude towards the pseudo sciences is fairly critical. One quick example of this is that you can find published reports on nearly any pseudo science topic that have contradictory conclusions. Typically, all you have to do is look at the funding source for the study or the origin of the group performing the study, and the conclusion will be pre-determined based on that bias.

Would love to openly discuss opinions, but probably the wrong place for an open analysis on the topic.

The core of the argument is why focus efforts on 10% of the the personal computer market when the other 90% is what runs the world (servers, business, finance, etc.) In other words, it has never been an issue of vulnerability, rather, opportunity for the hackers.

However, with mobile devices taking over the world you can guarantee that both iOS and Android platforms are target rich environments.